RESUMO
Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Cost-analysis comparing darbepoetin-alfa (DARB), epoetin-alfa (EPO-A), and epoetin-beta (EPO-B) for treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in Belgium concluded that costs for DARB-treated patients were significantly lower than costs for EPO-A- or EPO-B-treated patients. The objective of the present study was to extend the Belgian analysis to Austria, France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, estimating differences in costs between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in each country. METHODS: Differences in epidemiology and treatment patterns between countries were adjusted using data from Eurostat, national cancer registries, IMS sales data, and reimbursement and treatment guidelines. Belgian unit costs were replaced with country-specific costs. Costs were analyzed using a mixed-effects model stratifying for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS: All populations were comparable to the Belgian population in terms of age, gender, ESA, and blood transfusions use. After adjusting for country-specific chemotherapy use and cancer incidence, total management costs per patient (Euro, 2010) were 19-26% (France, Spain) lower with DARB compared with EPO-A (p < 0.0001) and 20-36% (Portugal, Austria) compared with EPO-B (p < 0.01). Anemia-related costs with DARB were between 12% (Portugal; p = 0.0235) and 38% (Italy; p < 0.0001) lower compared with EPO-A (p < 0.01; all remaining countries), and between 13% (Austria; p = 0.064) and 19% (Portugal; p = 0.0028) lower compared with EPO-B (p < 0.05; all remaining countries except Italy; p = 0.0935). LIMITATIONS: Not all differences could be accounted for by a lack of country-specific data; however, the potential under- and over-estimation of costs should be similar for all three ESAs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are in line with the Belgian analysis. In all countries, total and anemia-related costs were lowest in patients receiving DARB vs EPO-A or EPO-B. This study demonstrates the feasibility of adapting real-life country-specific data to other settings, adjusting for differences in patients' characteristics and treatment strategies. These findings should be valuable in healthcare decision-making in oncology patients treated in each of the countries studied.
