Wisely Frugal: Ensuring sustainable funding for novel cancer therapeutics using cost-effectiveness thresholds in resource limited settings
Joseph, N.; Peiris, V.; Bamunuarachchi, V.; Abeysinghe, P.; Jeyakumaran, N.; Perera, K.; Fernandopulle, R.; Gunasekera, S.
Show abstract
IntroductionCancer care in Sri Lanka is predominantly provided through its public funded state health system which is free at the point of delivery. The health system faced unprecedented funding restrictions brought about by the post-pandemic recession. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of novel cancer drugs with a view to prioritising novel cancer therapeutics to its sustainability during these challenging times. MethodsThe direct cost of drug procurement was obtained, and the cost per life year gained was computed for each indication. Two thresholds - per capita GDP per life year gained (GDPx1) and three times per capita GDP per life year gained (GDPx3) were considered to determine cost effectiveness. The cumulative annual cost of these treatments were then determined by multiplying the cost per treatment course per patient by the estimated number of treated patients per year for each indication. ResultsData obtained on 42 novel cancer drugs spanning across 90 indications were included in the analysis. The cumulative annual treatment cost when the threshold was set at GDPx1 was US$ 6 million and it increased to US$ 16.3 million if the threshold was expanded GDPx3. Only 28 indications met the GDPx3 threshold while there were 18 drugs that did not meet the thresholds for any indication. Without a threshold, if every eligible patient were to receive the indicated currently used novel drugs, the total cost of treatment would reach almost US$ 300 million per year. ConclusionCost-effectiveness thresholds will lead to considerable savings and help prioritise procurement and supply of cost-effective novel agents in the state health system in Sri Lanka. Advances in KnowledgeIn this work, we show that significant savings can be achieved by performing simple cost-effectiveness analyses and defining thresholds. The absence of robust quality of life and costing data should not deter policy makers from such conducting analyses from available information.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors affecting COVID-19 outcomes in cancer patients - A first report from Guys Cancer Centre in London 91%
- An Evaluation of the Efficacy of Preclinical Models of Lung Cancer Drugs 90%
- Computational drug repositioning for the identification of new agents to sensitize drug-resistant breast tumors across treatments and receptor subtypes 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- First-Line Systemic Treatment Strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma : a cost-effectiveness analysis 93%
- Cost-effectiveness of real-world administration of chemotherapy and add-on Viscum album L. therapy compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC patients 92%
- Projected Cancer Burden, Challenges, and Barriers to Cancer Prevention and Control Activities in the State of Telangana 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pan-cancer analyses of the associations between 109 pre-existing conditions and cancer treatment patterns across 19 adult cancers 91%
- The molecular basis of the anticancer effect of statins 91%
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Catastrophic Cost incurred by Tuberculosis Patients and their Households 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Moving forward through consensus: a national Delphi approach to determine the top research priorities in prostate cancer in Uganda 91%
- Patterns of peritoneal dissemination and response to systemic chemotherapy in common and rare peritoneal tumors treated by cytoreductive surgery: Study protocol of a prospective, multi-center, observational study 90%
- The role of healthcare cost accounting in pricing and reimbursement in low- and middle-income countries 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.