Abstract

The premature cancer mortality rate has been declining in Canada, but there has been considerable variation in the rate of decline across cancer sites. I analyze the effect that pharmaceutical innovation had on premature cancer mortality in Canada during the period 2000–2011, by investigating whether the cancer sites that experienced more pharmaceutical innovation had larger declines in the premature mortality rate, controlling for changes in the incidence rate. Premature mortality before age 75 is significantly inversely related to the cumulative number of drugs registered at least 10 years earlier. Since mean utilization of drugs that have been marketed for less than 10 years is only one-sixth as great as mean utilization of drugs that have been marketed for at least a decade, it is not surprising that premature mortality is strongly inversely related only to the cumulative number of drugs that had been registered at least ten years earlier. Premature mortality before age 65 and 55 is also strongly inversely related to the cumulative number of drugs that had been registered at least ten years earlier. None of the estimates of the effect of incidence on mortality are statistically significant. Controlling for the cumulative number of drugs, the cumulative number of chemical subgroups does not have a statistically significant effect on premature mortality. This suggests that drugs (chemical substances) within the same class (chemical subgroup) are not therapeutically equivalent. During the period 2000–2011, the premature (before age 75) cancer mortality rate declined by about 9 %. The estimates imply that, in the absence of pharmaceutical innovation during the period 1985–1996, the premature cancer mortality rate would have increased about 12 % during the period 2000–2011. A substantial decline in the “competing risk” of death from cardiovascular disease could account for this. The estimates imply that pharmaceutical innovation during the period 1985–1996 reduced the number of years of potential life lost to cancer before age 75 in 2011 by 105,366. The cost per life-year before age 75 gained from previous pharmaceutical innovation is estimated to have been 2730 USD. Most of the previously-registered drugs were off-patent by 2011, but evidence suggests that, even if these drugs had been sold at branded rather than generic prices, the cost per life-year gained would have been below 11,000 USD, a figure well below even the lowest estimates of the value of a life-year gained. The largest reductions in premature mortality occur at least a decade after drugs are registered, when their utilization increases significantly. This suggests that, if Canada is to obtain substantial additional reductions in premature cancer mortality in the future (a decade or more from now) at a modest cost, pharmaceutical innovation (registration of new drugs) is needed today.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10754-015-9172-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Previous authors have argued that “reducing premature mortality is a crucial public health objective” (Renard et al 2014)

  • In 2011, the population age 0–74 was about 32.1 million, so the estimates of model 4 imply that pharmaceutical innovation during the period 1985–1996 reduced the number of years of potential life lost to cancer before age 75 in 2011 by 105,366 (= 321 * (1788 – 1459))

  • The premature cancer mortality rate has been declining in Canada, and there has been considerable variation in the rate of decline across cancer sites

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Previous authors have argued that “reducing premature mortality is a crucial public health objective” (Renard et al 2014). In Eq (1), premature mortality from cancer at site s in year t depends on the number of new chemical entities (drugs) to treat cancer at site s registered in Canada by the end of year t − k, i.e. there is a lag of k years. In models 3–6, the lags are 10, 15, 20, and 25 years, respectively All of these coefficients are negative and highly statistically significant (p value

Findings
Discussion
Summary and conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call