Value of innovation for hematologic malignancies

Abstract

Background:Several novel drugs are dramatically improving both lifespan and quality-of-life of patients with blood cancers.Aim:Prolonged disease duration and increased treatment costs for hematologic malignancies impose a relevant economic burden onto healthcare services, despite the low incidence of blood cancers. Therefore, an appropriate paradigm for valuing ‘innovation’ is urgently required in order to refine pricing and reimbursement decisions. Cost-per-QALY-gained is still the standard metric for assessing the ‘incremental’ value of new drugs; however, the high number of ‘comparator’ therapies and the huge variety of treatment sequences make plain two-treatment comparisons sub-optimal, while multiple-treatment and multiple-sequence comparisons require complex and less-transparent decision models. A repository of standard backbones for decision models might allow benchmarking and comparability among cost-effectiveness analyses; however, an international effort is required to build it up.Results:Deontology recommends that hematologists act in optimizing healthcare resources while preserving patient–physician alliance, but clinical practice guidelines do not support doctors in balancing cost against clinical outcomes. Decision models of chronic blood cancers unexpectedly proved that cost might be an appropriate value for innovation if treatments avoided severe toxicity and further lines of treatments, despite the eventually long duration of treatment and the competing risk of death due to comorbidity and old age.Conclusion:The improved transparency of decision models allows sharing of relevant structural and analytic parameters (i.e., time horizon, comparator treatments, hierarchy of end-point, assumptions, source of data, sub-group analyses) by stakeholders, physicians and patients, making health economics a noble ‘translator’ of values for innovation.