Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview
2.2. Translation
2.3. Panelists
2.4. Drugs
2.5. Reliability and Validity of ASCO v2.0 and ESMO-MCBS v1.1
2.6. Analysis
2.7. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
2.8. Focus Group Interview (FGI)
3. Results
3.1. Validity of Translation
3.2. Relative Weights of Evaluation Framework Variables
3.3. Opinions of Stakeholders
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Dusetzina, S.B. Drug Pricing Trends for Orally Administered Anticancer Medications Reimbursed by Commercial Health Plans, 2000-2014. JAMA Oncol. 2016, 2, 960–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Light, D.W.; Kantarjian, H. Market spiral pricing of cancer drugs. Cancer 2013, 119, 3900–3902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fojo, T.; Mailankody, S.; Lo, A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics—The pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: The John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014, 140, 1225–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, H.; Fojo, T.; Mailankody, S. An appraisal of clinically meaningful outcomes guidelines for oncology clinical trials. JAMA Oncol. 2016, 2, 1238–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKee, A.E.; Farrell, A.T.; Pazdur, R.; Woodcock, J. The role of the US Food and Drug Administration review process: Clinical trial endpoints in oncology. Oncologist 2010, 15, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chhatwal, J.; Mathisen, M.; Kantarjian, H. Are high drug prices for hematologic malignancies justified? A critical analysis. Cancer 2015, 121, 3372–3379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bae, S.; Lee, S.; Bae, E.Y.; Jang, S. Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (Second and Updated Version). PharmacoEconomics 2013, 31, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, J.R.; Lee, D.; Lim, K.-M.; Bae, S. Are Recently Evaluated Drugs More Likely to Receive Positive Reimbursement Recommendations in South Korea? 11-Year Experience of the South Korean Positive List System. Clin. Ther. 2020, 42, 1222–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cherny, N.I.; De Vries, E.G.; Dafni, U.; Garrett-Mayer, E.; McKernin, S.E.; Piccart, M.; Latino, N.J.; Douillard, J.-Y.; Schnipper, L.E.; Somerfield, M.R.; et al. Comparative assessment of clinical benefit using the ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale version 1.1 and the ASCO value framework net health benefit score. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 336–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherny, N.I.; Sullivan, R.; Dafni, U.; Kerst, J.M.; Sobrero, A.; Zielinski, C.; de Vries, E.G.; Piccart, M.J. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 1547–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, D.J.; Lin, D.; Lee, S.; Levy, B.P.; Makarov, D.V.; Gold, H.T.; Sherman, S. Exploration of the ASCO and ESMO value frameworks for antineoplastic drugs. J. Oncol. Pract. 2017, 13, e653–e665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campolina, A.G. Value-based medicine in oncology: The importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks. Clinics 2018, 73, e470s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wild, C.; Grössmann, N.; Bonanno, P.; Bucsics, A.; Furst, J.; Garuoliene, K.; Godman, B.; Gulbinovič, J.; Jones, J.; Pomorski, M.; et al. Utilisation of the ESMO-MCBS in practice of HTA. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 2134–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodriguez, A.; Esposito, F.; Oliveres, H.; Torres, F.; Maurel, J. Are Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Two Sides of the Same Coin, to Grade Recommendations for Drug Approval? J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.Y.; Ha, H.; Lee, H.Y.; Koo, D.-H.; Han, H.S.; Kim, H.J.; Oh, S.Y.; Bae, S.; Bae, G.; Cho, J.-Y.; et al. Do we consider to apply the value framework of cancer drugs to clinical practice and health insurance coverage in Korea? J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, e19391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabin, R.; Gudex, C.; Selai, C.; Herdman, M. From Translation to Version Management: A History and Review of Methods for the Cultural Adaptation of the EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire. Value Health 2014, 17, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Clinical Trial Guidelines; Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA): Cheongwon-gun, Korea; p. 2015.
- Zou, G.Y. Sample size formulas for estimating intraclass correlation coefficients with precision and assurance. Stat. Med. 2012, 31, 3972–3981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentley, T.G.; Cohen, J.T.; Elkin, E.B.; Huynh, J.; Mukherjea, A.; Neville, T.H.; Mei, M.; Copher, R.; Knoth, R.; Popescu, I.; et al. Validity and reliability of value assessment frameworks for new cancer drugs. Value Health 2017, 20, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med Res. 1999, 8, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrout, P.E.; Fleiss, J.L. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saluja, R.; Everest, L.; Cheng, S.; Cheung, M.; Chan, K.K. Assessment of whether the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology’s Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale measure absolute or relative clinical survival benefit: An analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Oncol. 2019, 5, 1188–1194. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. Analytic heirarchy process. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online; Wiley Online Library: United States, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cherny, N.I.; Dafni, U.; Bogaerts, J.; Latino, N.J.; Pentheroudakis, G.; Douillard, J.-Y.; Tabernero, J.; Zielinski, C.; Piccart, M.J.; de Vries, E.G.E. ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale version 1.1. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 2340–2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnipper, L.E.; Davidson, N.E.; Wollins, D.S.; Blayney, D.W.; Dicker, A.P.; Ganz, P.A.; Hoverman, J.R.; Langdon, R.; Lyman, G.H.; Meropol, N.J.; et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: Revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 2925–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilson, L.; Lin, T.; Wang, L.; Patel, T.; Tran, D.; Kim, S.; Dacey, K.; Yuen, C.; Kroon, L.; Brodowy, B.; et al. Evaluation of the ASCO value framework for anticancer drugs at an academic medical center. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2017, 23, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, S.; McDonald, E.J.; Cheung, M.C.; Arciero, V.S.; Qureshi, M.; Jiang, D.; Ezeife, D.; Sabharwal, M.; Chambers, A.; Han, D.; et al. Do the American society of clinical oncology value framework and the European society of medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale measure the same construct of clinical benefit? J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 2764–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Del Paggio, J.; Sullivan, R.; Hopman, W.; Booth, C. Re-aligning the ASCO and ESMO clinical benefit frameworks for modern cancer therapies. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, 773–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Del Paggio, J.C.; Sullivan, R.; Schrag, D.; Hopman, W.M.; Azariah, B.; Pramesh, C.S.; Tannock, I.F.; Booth, C.M. Delivery of meaningful cancer care: A retrospective cohort study assessing cost and benefit with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Drug | Original Version | Forward Translation | Backward Translation | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ASCO | ESMO | ASCO | ESMO | ASCO | ESMO | |||||||
Mean ± SD | CV | Mean ± SD | CV | Mean ± SD | CV | Mean ± SD | CV | Mean ± SD | CV | Mean ± SD | CV | |
Overall | ||||||||||||
ICC | 0.899 (0.695–0.984) | 0.749 (0.007–0.982) | 0.895 (0.654–0.983) | 0.726 (0 †–0.982) | 0.930 (0.792–0.989) | 0.900 (0.604–0.993) | ||||||
A | 78.63 ± 24.44 | 0.31 | 3.71 ± 0.49 | 0.13 | 90.27 ± 8.48 | 0.09 | 4.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 | 87.07 ± 11.73 | 0.13 | 3.88 ± 0.83 | 0.21 |
B | 75.72 ± 14.22 | 0.19 | 3.57 ± 1.40 | 0.39 | 73.29 ± 12.48 | 0.17 | 3.80 ± 1.64 | 0.43 | 78.66 ± 17.33 | 0.22 | 4.75 ± 0.71 | 0.15 |
C | 59.84 ± 17.07 | 0.29 | 3.29 ± 1.60 | 0.49 | 58.36 ± 14.30 | 0.25 | 3.80 ± 1.64 | 0.43 | 57.78 ± 9.46 | 0.16 | 3.38 ± 1.41 | 0.42 |
D | 49.55 ± 26.35 | 0.53 | 1.86 ± 0.38 | 0.20 | 42.23 ± 17.76 | 0.42 | 1.80 ± 0.45 | 0.25 | 50.60 ± 19.62 | 0.39 | 2.25 ± 0.46 | 0.20 |
E | 39.71 ± 11.04 | 0.28 | - | 39.95 ± 7.88 | 0.20 | - | 39.74 ± 11.08 | 0.28 | - | |||
F | 54.38 ± 17.36 | 0.32 | - | 60.16 ± 14.04 | 0.23 | - | 70.24 ± 15.20 | 0.22 | - | |||
Clinical benefit | ||||||||||||
ICC | 0.620 (0 †–0.939) | 0.973 (0.910–0.996) | 0.973 (0.921–0.996) | |||||||||
A | 51.29 ± 22.15 | 0.43 | - | 60.00 ± 6.16 | 0.10 | - | 62.70 ± 9.54 | 0.15 | - | |||
B | 41.57 ± 9.29 | 0.22 | - | 38.20 ± 6.26 | 0.16 | - | 38.24 ± 5.55 | 0.15 | - | |||
C | 35.00 ± 15.87 | 0.45 | - | 29.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 | - | 31.78 ± 7.01 | 0.22 | - | |||
D | 33.57 ± 17.39 | 0.52 | - | 27.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 | - | 30.35 ± 4.62 | 0.15 | - | |||
E | 29.04 ± 12.07 | 0.42 | - | 24.66 ± 4.37 | 0.18 | - | 26.20 ± 4.29 | 0.16 | - | |||
F | 34.46 ± 7.99 | 0.23 | - | 32.24 ± 8.54 | 0.26 | - | 44.83 ± 4.56 | 0.10 | - | |||
Toxicity | ||||||||||||
ICC | 0.928 (0.781–0.988) | 0.407 (0 †–0.906) | 0.823 (0.477–0.971) | |||||||||
A | 4.16 ± 5.27 | 1.27 | 1.69 ± 1.01 | 0.60 | - | 1.62 ± 1.12 | 0.69 | - | ||||
B | 9.89 ± 9.08 | 0.92 | 7.13 ± 9.43 | 1.32 | - | 11.67 ± 6.84 | 0.59 | - | ||||
C | 3.41 ± 6.77 | 1.99 | 0.36 ± 4.97 | 13.81 | - | 4.75 ± 7.96 | 1.68 | - | ||||
D | 3.12 ± 3.62 | 1.16 | 1.23 ± 1.62 | 1.32 | - | 4.37 ± 6.38 | 1.46 | - | ||||
E | 1.12 ± 4.39 | 3.92 | −0.30 ± 1.68 | −5.60 | - | −2.71 ± 7.21 | −2.66 | - | ||||
F | −1.60 ± 7.28 | −4.55 | −0.20 ± 2.65 | −13.25 | - | −0.81 ± 4.39 | −5.42 | - | ||||
Bonus point | ||||||||||||
ICC | 0.781 (0.338–0.965) | 0.646 (0 †–0.944) | 0.557 (0 †–0.928) | |||||||||
A | 23.14 ± 11.71 | 0.51 | 28.40 ± 9.21 | 0.32 | - | 22.75 ± 5.75 | 0.25 | - | ||||
B | 28.57 ± 12.15 | 0.43 | 34.00 ± 8.94 | 0.26 | - | 28.75 ± 13.56 | 0.47 | - | ||||
C | 20.00 ± 16.07 | 0.80 | 27.00 ± 13.04 | 0.48 | - | 21.25 ± 13.56 | 0.64 | - | ||||
D | 12.86 ± 14.96 | 1.16 | 14.00 ± 16.73 | 1.20 | - | 16.25 ± 11.88 | 0.73 | - | ||||
E | 12.86 ± 7.56 | 0.59 | 16.00 ± 5.48 | 0.34 | - | 16.25 ± 5.18 | 0.32 | - | ||||
F | 22.00± 13.27 | 0.60 | 28.80 ± 7.01 | 0.24 | - | 26.25 ± 11.63 | 0.44 | - |
Relative Weights | Prescribing Oncology Drug | Prescribing Immuno-Cancer Drug | ASCO Variables | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Clinical benefit | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.40 | |
Toxicity | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.15 | |
Bonus consideration | QoL | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.14 |
Additional clinical improvements * | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.25 | |
Cost | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.08 |
Category | Core Opinions |
---|---|
Opinions on the relative weights used in the oncology value assessment tool |
|
Necessity of oncology drug valuation tool |
|
Implementation of frameworks |
|
Application of frameworks in the reimbursement system |
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bae, G.; Bae, S.; Lee, D.; Han, J.; Koo, D.-H.; Kim, D.Y.; Kim, H.-J.; Oh, S.Y.; Lee, H.Y.; Lee, J.H.; et al. Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063139
Bae G, Bae S, Lee D, Han J, Koo D-H, Kim DY, Kim H-J, Oh SY, Lee HY, Lee JH, et al. Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(6):3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063139
Chicago/Turabian StyleBae, Green, SeungJin Bae, Donghwan Lee, Juhee Han, Dong-Hoe Koo, Do Yeun Kim, Hee-Jun Kim, Sung Young Oh, Hee Yeon Lee, Jong Hwan Lee, and et al. 2021. "Value Frameworks: Adaptation of Korean Versions of Value Frameworks for Oncology" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 6: 3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063139