澳大利亚考虑资助癌症药物的临床效益证据。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1017/S0266462324000576
Agnes Vitry, Joshua Inglis, Cathy Caird
{"title":"澳大利亚考虑资助癌症药物的临床效益证据。","authors":"Agnes Vitry, Joshua Inglis, Cathy Caird","doi":"10.1017/S0266462324000576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe the type of evidence and the clinical benefit of cancer medicines assessed for funding in Australia by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and to assess it with the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All data on applications submitted to PBAC between 2010 and 2020 were extracted from PBAC Public Summary Documents available online. ESMO-MCBS ratings were retrieved from the ESMO-MCBS website.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Then, 182 cancer indications for 100 cancer medicines were examined by PBAC, including 124 (68.1 percent) for solid tumors and 58 (31.9 percent) for hematological cancers. A total of 137 (75.3 percent) indications were recommended for PBS funding and 40 (21.9 percent) were rejected. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were the main source of evidence in 154 indications (84.6 percent), single-arm studies in 28 (15.4 percent) indications. Statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was reported in 80 (44 percent) of the indications, with a median OS gain of 3.0 months (range 0.9-17.0) for solid tumors and 8.2 months (range 1-49.1) for hematological cancers when mature OS data were available. The ESMO-MCBS score was available for 99 solid tumor indications, of which 51 (51.5 percent) showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS, including 40 (54.1 percent) of PBAC-recommended indications and 9 (42.9 percent) of PBAC-rejected indications. There was no association between the ESMO scoring and PBAC decision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most cancer medicines indications considered by PBAC were supported by RCTs. A minority showed a substantial improvement in OS.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"40 1","pages":"e55"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579664/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence of clinical benefit of cancer medicines considered for funding in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Agnes Vitry, Joshua Inglis, Cathy Caird\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462324000576\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe the type of evidence and the clinical benefit of cancer medicines assessed for funding in Australia by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and to assess it with the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All data on applications submitted to PBAC between 2010 and 2020 were extracted from PBAC Public Summary Documents available online. ESMO-MCBS ratings were retrieved from the ESMO-MCBS website.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Then, 182 cancer indications for 100 cancer medicines were examined by PBAC, including 124 (68.1 percent) for solid tumors and 58 (31.9 percent) for hematological cancers. A total of 137 (75.3 percent) indications were recommended for PBS funding and 40 (21.9 percent) were rejected. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were the main source of evidence in 154 indications (84.6 percent), single-arm studies in 28 (15.4 percent) indications. Statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was reported in 80 (44 percent) of the indications, with a median OS gain of 3.0 months (range 0.9-17.0) for solid tumors and 8.2 months (range 1-49.1) for hematological cancers when mature OS data were available. The ESMO-MCBS score was available for 99 solid tumor indications, of which 51 (51.5 percent) showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS, including 40 (54.1 percent) of PBAC-recommended indications and 9 (42.9 percent) of PBAC-rejected indications. There was no association between the ESMO scoring and PBAC decision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most cancer medicines indications considered by PBAC were supported by RCTs. A minority showed a substantial improvement in OS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"e55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579664/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000576\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000576","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的描述澳大利亚药品利益咨询委员会(PBAC)评估资助的癌症药物的证据类型和临床获益,并用欧洲肿瘤内科学会临床获益量表 1.1 版(ESMO-MCBS)进行评估:从网上提供的 PBAC 公开摘要文件中提取 2010 年至 2020 年间提交给 PBAC 的所有申请数据。从ESMO-MCBS网站检索ESMO-MCBS评级:然后,PBAC 审查了 100 种癌症药物的 182 个癌症适应症,其中 124 个(68.1%)用于实体瘤,58 个(31.9%)用于血液肿瘤。共有 137 项(75.3%)适应症被推荐获得 PBS 资助,40 项(21.9%)被拒绝。随机临床试验(RCT)是 154 个适应症(84.6%)的主要证据来源,单臂研究是 28 个适应症(15.4%)的主要证据来源。80个适应症(44%)的总生存期(OS)有统计学意义上的明显改善,在有成熟OS数据的情况下,实体瘤的中位OS延长了3.0个月(范围0.9-17.0),血液肿瘤的中位OS延长了8.2个月(范围1-49.1)。有99个实体瘤适应症的ESMO-MCBS评分,其中51个(51.5%)根据ESMO-MCBS显示出实质性临床获益,包括40个(54.1%)PBAC推荐的适应症和9个(42.9%)PBAC拒绝的适应症。ESMO评分与PBAC决定之间没有关联:结论:PBAC 考虑的大多数抗癌药物适应症都得到了 RCT 的支持。结论:PBAC 考虑的大多数癌症药物适应症都得到了 RCT 的支持,少数适应症的 OS 有显著改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence of clinical benefit of cancer medicines considered for funding in Australia.

Objectives: To describe the type of evidence and the clinical benefit of cancer medicines assessed for funding in Australia by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and to assess it with the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS).

Methods: All data on applications submitted to PBAC between 2010 and 2020 were extracted from PBAC Public Summary Documents available online. ESMO-MCBS ratings were retrieved from the ESMO-MCBS website.

Results: Then, 182 cancer indications for 100 cancer medicines were examined by PBAC, including 124 (68.1 percent) for solid tumors and 58 (31.9 percent) for hematological cancers. A total of 137 (75.3 percent) indications were recommended for PBS funding and 40 (21.9 percent) were rejected. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were the main source of evidence in 154 indications (84.6 percent), single-arm studies in 28 (15.4 percent) indications. Statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was reported in 80 (44 percent) of the indications, with a median OS gain of 3.0 months (range 0.9-17.0) for solid tumors and 8.2 months (range 1-49.1) for hematological cancers when mature OS data were available. The ESMO-MCBS score was available for 99 solid tumor indications, of which 51 (51.5 percent) showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS, including 40 (54.1 percent) of PBAC-recommended indications and 9 (42.9 percent) of PBAC-rejected indications. There was no association between the ESMO scoring and PBAC decision.

Conclusions: Most cancer medicines indications considered by PBAC were supported by RCTs. A minority showed a substantial improvement in OS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
期刊最新文献
A MINIMUM DATASET FOR DESTINATION THERAPY WITH LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE: THE EVIDENCE THAT MATTERS TO DECISION MAKERS. A decision-analytic method to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring technology for chronic depression. Development of a value assessment framework for Health Technology Assessment in rare diseases drugs: insights from a Delphi study in Brazil. Good Practices for Health Technology Assessment Guideline Development: A Report of the Health Technology Assessment International, HTAsiaLink, and ISPOR Special Task Force. How can actuarial science contribute to the field of health technology assessment? An interdisciplinary perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1