A Practical Guide for Using Registry Data to Inform Decisions About the Cost Effectiveness of New Cancer Drugs: Lessons Learned from the PHAROS Registry

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 551-560

  Blommestein, Hedwig M ^a   Franken, Margreet G ^a   Uyl de Groot, Carin A ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA SYNTHESIS; DRUG COST; DRUG INDICATION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNCERTAINTY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; HEMATOLOGIC NEOPLASMS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NETHERLANDS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEMATOLOGIC NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGISTRIES; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 84929958301     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0260-4     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Gliklich R, Dreyer N, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide (prepared by Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc. d/b/a Outcome] under Contract No. HHSA29020050035I TO2). AHRQ Publication No. 10-EHC049. 2nd ed. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
2. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.; 2005.
3. Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, Uyl-de Groot C, Rutten F. Costs and effects: a guideline for economic evaluations in health care. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Gezondheidszorg; 2010.
4. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS): explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–50.
5. Berger ML, Martin BC, Husereau D, Worley K, Allen JD, Yang W, et al. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):143–56.
6. Merlo G, Page K, Ratcliffe J, Halton K, Graves N. Bridging the gap: exploring the barriers to using economic evidence in healthcare decision making and strategies for improving uptake. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2014. doi:10.1007/s40258-014-0132-7.
7. Williams I, Bryan S. Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: a conceptual framework. Health Policy. 2007;80(1):135–43.
8. Dreyer NA, Garner S. Registries for robust evidence. JAMA. 2009;302(7):790–1.
9. Delwel GO. Guidance for outcomes research. 2008;270. Available at http://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/binaries/content/documents/zinl-www/documenten/publicaties/publications-in-english/2008/0812-guidance-for-outcomes-research/0812-guidance-for-outcomes-research/Guidance+for+Outcomes+Research.pdf.
10. Kuijpers MR, Toenders WGM. Assessment procedure for inpatient drugs [in Dutch: procedure beoordeling intramurale geneesmiddelen], Report no. 26022597. 2006.
11. Huijgens PC, Posthuma EFM, Coebergh JWW, van de Poll-Franse LV, Uyl-de Groot CA, Sonneveld P. A ‘population based registry’ for hemato-oncology. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Hematologie. 2010;7:321–5.
12. Blommestein HM, Issa DE, Pompen M, Ten Hoor G, Hogendoorn M, Joosten P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of rituximab as maintenance treatment for relapsed follicular lymphoma: results of a population-based study. Eur J Haematol. 2014;92(5):398–406.
13. van Gils CW, de Groot S, Tan SS, Redekop WK, Koopman M, Punt CJ, et al. Real-world resource use and costs of adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013. doi:10.11111/ecc.12154.
14. Health Insurance Board [in Dutch College Voor Zorgverzekeringen]. Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. 2006;2014.
15. van de Poll-Franse LV, Horevoorts N, Eenbergen Mv, Denollet J, Roukema JA, Aaronson NK, et al. The patient reported outcomes following initial treatment and long term evaluation of survivorship registry: scope, rationale and design of an infrastructure for the study of physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivorship cohorts. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(14):2188–94.
16. Kasteng F, Erlanson M, Hagberg H, Kimby E, Relander T, Lundkvist J. Cost-effectiveness of maintenance rituximab treatment after second line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma in Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(6):1029–36.
17. Pettengell R, Donatti C, Hoskin P, Poynton C, Kettle PJ, Hancock B, et al. The impact of follicular lymphoma on health-related quality of life. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(3):570–6.
18. Gaultney JG, Franken MG, Tan SS, Redekop WK, Huijgens PC, Sonneveld P, et al. Real-world health care costs of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma during the era of novel cancer agents. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;38(1):41–7.
19. Franken MG, van Gils CW, Gaultney JG, Delwel GO, Goettsch W, Huijgens PC, et al. Practical feasibility of outcomes research in oncology: lessons learned in assessing drug use and cost-effectiveness in The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(1):8–16.
20. Franken MG, Gaultney JG, Blommestein HM, Huijgens PC, Sonneveld P, Redekop WK, et al. Policymaker, please consider your needs carefully: does outcomes research in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma reduce policymaker uncertainty regarding value for money of bortezomib? Value Health. 2014;17(2):245–53.
21. Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(2):131–48.
22. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.
23. Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA, Gaziano JM, Aslan M, Huang GD. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med. 2010;123(12 Suppl 1):e16–23.
24. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, Garbe E, Siebert U, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report: Part II. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1053–61.
25. Psaty BM, Siscovick DS. Minimizing bias due to confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research: the importance of restriction. JAMA. 2010;304(8):897–8.
26. Sturmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(5):437–47.
27. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.
28. Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, Chan KA, Gaziano JM, Berger K, et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(3):262–70.
29. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, Levin R, Avorn J. Selective prescribing led to overestimation of the benefits of lipid-lowering drugs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(8):819–28.
30. van Gils CW, de Groot S, Redekop WK, Koopman M, Punt CJ, Uyl-de Groot CA. Real-world cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in stage III colon cancer: a synthesis of clinical trial and daily practice evidence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):703–18.
31. Rubin D. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.
32. Little R, Rubin D. Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley; 1987.
33. Gerber-Grote A, Windeler J. What is the contribution of health economic evaluations to decision-making in health care? Experiences from 7 selected countries. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 2014;108(7):358–9.
34. Franken MG, Koopmanschap M, Steenhoek A. Health economic evaluations in reimbursement decision making in the Netherlands; time to take it seriously? Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen. 2014;108(7):383–9.
35. Gaultney JG, Sanhueza E, Janssen JJ, Redekop WK, Uyl-de Groot CA. Application of cost-effectiveness analysis to demonstrate the potential value of companion diagnostics in chronic myeloid leukemia. Pharmacogenomics. 2011;12(3):411–21.
36. van der Linden N, van Gils CW, Pescott CP, Buter J. Uyl-de Groot CA. Cetuximab in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: generalizability of EMR 062202-006 trial results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271(6):1673–8.
37. Nallamothu BK, Hayward RA, Bates ER. Beyond the randomized clinical trial: the role of effectiveness studies in evaluating cardiovascular therapies. Circulation. 2008;118(12):1294–303.