IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v34y2016i10d10.1007_s40273-016-0411-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Bonny Parkinson

    (Macquarie University
    University of Technology Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Marion Haas

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Stephen Goodall

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Preeyaporn Srasuebkul

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Sallie-Anne Pearson

    (University of New South Wales
    The University of Sydney)

Abstract

Introduction Estimating the real-world cost-effectiveness of a new drug relies on understanding the differences between clinical trial data (pre-reimbursement) and clinical practice (post-reimbursement). This is important for decision makers when reviewing reimbursement decisions, prices, and considering other drugs for the same condition. Differences can arise from differences in patient characteristics, but also from the availability of new evidence and evolving treatment practices. This paper examines these issues using a case study. Methods In 2001, the Australian Government funded trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer through the Herceptin Program. The administrative arrangements of the Program resulted in rich observational data that captured information about patients treated with trastuzumab between 2001 and 2010 (n = 3830). The dataset included patient characteristics, dispensed medicines, medical service use and date of death. Results Compared to participants in the clinical trials, patients were older, received more prior chemotherapies and a broader range of co-administered chemotherapies. Treatment practices differed from the clinical trials, but also changed over time. For example, in situ hybridization testing, rather than immunohistochemistry testing, and a three weekly administration schedule, rather than one weekly, were increasingly used. Compared to the clinical trials, patients administered trastuzumab with a concomitant chemotherapy generally experienced longer overall survival (151.3 weeks, 95 % CI: 142.6, 163.4), while those who received trastuzumab as a monotherapy experienced shorter overall survival (94.4 weeks, 95%CI: 86.4, 102.9). These findings may be due to a differing relative treatment effect in clinical practice, but may also be due to a range of other factors. Conclusion This analysis demonstrates the challenges for decision makers that arise because new evidence and evolving treatment practices create a gap between clinical trial data and real-world clinical practice and outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonny Parkinson & Rosalie Viney & Marion Haas & Stephen Goodall & Preeyaporn Srasuebkul & Sallie-Anne Pearson, 2016. "Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 1039-1050, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0411-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0411-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0411-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-016-0411-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlson, Josh J. & Sullivan, Sean D. & Garrison, Louis P. & Neumann, Peter J. & Veenstra, David L., 2010. "Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 179-190, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Ghijben & Dennis Petrie & Silva Zavarsek & Gang Chen & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Healthcare Funding Decisions and Real-World Benefits: Reducing Bias by Matching Untreated Patients," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(7), pages 741-756, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Evgeni Dvortsin & Judith Gout-Zwart & Ernst-Lodewijk Marie Eijssen & Jan van Brussel & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Drugs in Early versus Late Stages of Cancer; Review of the Literature and a Case Study in Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2022. "When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Fernando Antonanzas & Carmelo Juárez-Castelló & Reyes Lorente & Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas, 2019. "The Use of Risk-Sharing Contracts in Healthcare: Theoretical and Empirical Assessments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(12), pages 1469-1483, December.
    4. Morgan, Steven G. & Thomson, Paige A. & Daw, Jamie R. & Friesen, Melissa K., 2013. "Canadian policy makers’ views on pharmaceutical reimbursement contracts involving confidential discounts from drug manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 248-254.
    5. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2012. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14021.
    6. Dunlop, William C.N. & Staufer, Alexandra & Levy, Pierre & Edwards, Guy J., 2018. "Innovative pharmaceutical pricing agreements in five European markets: A survey of stakeholder attitudes and experience," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(5), pages 528-532.
    7. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & Mackenzie Mills & Nicola Boekstein & Maxine Mackintosh & Panos Kanavos, 2017. "Towards High Quality Health Care and Sustainable Financing – the Role of Health Care Programmes," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s2), pages 46-59, March.
    8. Reza Mahjoub & Fredrik Ødegaard & Gregory S. Zaric, 2018. "Evaluation of a pharmaceutical risk‐sharing agreement when patients are screened for the probability of success," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, January.
    9. Bognar, Katalin & Romley, John A. & Bae, Jay P. & Murray, James & Chou, Jacquelyn W. & Lakdawalla, Darius N., 2017. "The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Ferrario, Alessandra & Kanavos, Panos, 2015. "Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: A comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 39-47.
    11. Elodie Adida, 2021. "Outcome-Based Pricing for New Pharmaceuticals via Rebates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 892-913, February.
    12. Bonny Parkinson & Catherine Sermet & Fiona Clement & Steffan Crausaz & Brian Godman & Sarah Garner & Moni Choudhury & Sallie-Anne Pearson & Rosalie Viney & Ruth Lopert & Adam Elshaug, 2015. "Disinvestment and Value-Based Purchasing Strategies for Pharmaceuticals: An International Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(9), pages 905-924, September.
    13. Goldman Dana P. & Lakdawalla Darius N. & Baumgardner James R. & Linthicum Mark T., 2016. "Are Biopharmaceutical Budget Caps Good Public Policy?," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 27-42, December.
    14. Simon Walker & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Steve Palmer, 2012. "Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions," Working Papers 077cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. Pace, Jessica & Ghinea, Narcyz & Kerridge, Ian & Lipworth, Wendy, 2018. "An ethical framework for the creation, governance and evaluation of accelerated access programs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(9), pages 984-990.
    16. Paula K Lorgelly, 2018. "The Impact of Brexit on Pharmaceuticals and HTA," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 87-91, June.
    17. Lou Garrison;Ruth Puig-Peiro;Adrian Towse, 2012. "The Use of Pay-for-Performance for Drugs: Can It Improve Incentives for Innovation?," Occasional Paper 000167, Office of Health Economics.
    18. Haitham W. Tuffaha & Paul A. Scuffham, 2018. "The Australian Managed Entry Scheme: Are We Getting it Right?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 555-565, May.
    19. Josh Carlson & Katie Gries & Kai Yeung & Sean Sullivan & Louis Garrison, 2014. "Authors’ Reply to Curto and Garattini: “Current Status and Trends in Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements Between Healthcare Payers and Medical Product Manufacturers”," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 567-568, October.
    20. Marc Berger & David Grainger, 2010. "Comparative Effectiveness Research," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(10), pages 915-922, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0411-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.