Abstract
The use of combination drug therapies (e.g., immunotherapies, chemotherapies and drugs having distinct mechanisms of action) for the treatment of cancer is now widespread; as well, the repositioning of FDA- approved treatments for off-label indications. While much is known about their clinical effectiveness, there exists no study of the relative cost of novel multi-drug combinations vs. monotherapies or examinations as to how knowledge about comparative therapy costs may be leveraged by doctors, health systems and payers to identify therapies that are likely to be more effective, less wasteful and a financial value. We found that
combination multi-drug cancer regimens are often far less expensive than traditional monotherapies,
novel, multi-drug combinations are often better financial values than traditional monotherapies, and
having treatment cost and value data, at the point of care, enables the prompt selection of more cost- effective medications and the avoidance of expensive low-value therapies that are financially wasteful.
We conclude that the effectiveness of value-based purchasing models may be amplified if providers and payers use comparative treatment cost data to augment and enhance their drug-selection decision making.
What Is The Current Knowledge On The Topic ?
☑ We know that the effectiveness of targeted multi-drug combination therapies in the treatment of cancer is long established, 1-4 that few clinicians are aware of the cost of the medications they prescribe, or which are more cost-effective, deliver a better return-on-investment or represent a financial value, 8 and that it is intuitive to infer that a combination of multiple high-cost medications is far more costly than a monotherapy.
What Question Did This Study Address ?
☑ Although studies on the clinical impact of multi-drug cancer treatments abound, 1-4 there are no examinations of the relative cost or value of combination therapies vs. that of traditional monotherapies, or how knowledge of how this data can be used in practice. A systematic method to calculate, evaluate and compare the relative cost of 1-, 2- and 3-drug combination cancer therapies is presented that can be used by providers, health systems and payers to better manage their oncology special pharmacy spend and drive better outcomes.
What Does This Study Add To Our Knowledge ?
☑ We show that multi-drug cancer therapies are not necessarily more costly than monotherapies; and that furnishing providers and payers with comparative treatment cost and value data to augment their complex medication selection decision making enables them to identify drugs that are a value, avoid those that are wasteful and create better targeted novel combination cancer therapies that represent a genuine value.
How Might This Change Combination Therapy Drug Selection Or Value-Based Oncology Management ?
☑ Clinicians have the tools, information and data with which to confidently develop novel drug combinations that customize molecular targeting, reduce waste and lower treatment costs. Payers now have a framework within which to drive value-based purchasing to gain control of their oncology specialty drug risk. Cancer patients will benefit from more personalized, efficient and effective therapies and less financial toxicity.
Competing Interest Statement
The Research Consortium serves as a healthcare industry advisor and payer product development consultant to CureMatch, Inc. which provided partial funding for this research.
Funding Statement
No funding source had any role in any aspect of this analysis and the existence of any relationship does not constitute a conflict of interest, or otherwise bias the impartiality, or compromise the integrity, of this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
