PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 1039–1050 | Cite as

Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

  • Bonny Parkinson
  • Rosalie Viney
  • Marion Haas
  • Stephen Goodall
  • Preeyaporn Srasuebkul
  • Sallie-Anne Pearson
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Estimating the real-world cost-effectiveness of a new drug relies on understanding the differences between clinical trial data (pre-reimbursement) and clinical practice (post-reimbursement). This is important for decision makers when reviewing reimbursement decisions, prices, and considering other drugs for the same condition. Differences can arise from differences in patient characteristics, but also from the availability of new evidence and evolving treatment practices. This paper examines these issues using a case study.

Methods

In 2001, the Australian Government funded trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer through the Herceptin Program. The administrative arrangements of the Program resulted in rich observational data that captured information about patients treated with trastuzumab between 2001 and 2010 (n = 3830). The dataset included patient characteristics, dispensed medicines, medical service use and date of death.

Results

Compared to participants in the clinical trials, patients were older, received more prior chemotherapies and a broader range of co-administered chemotherapies. Treatment practices differed from the clinical trials, but also changed over time. For example, in situ hybridization testing, rather than immunohistochemistry testing, and a three weekly administration schedule, rather than one weekly, were increasingly used. Compared to the clinical trials, patients administered trastuzumab with a concomitant chemotherapy generally experienced longer overall survival (151.3 weeks, 95 % CI: 142.6, 163.4), while those who received trastuzumab as a monotherapy experienced shorter overall survival (94.4 weeks, 95%CI: 86.4, 102.9). These findings may be due to a differing relative treatment effect in clinical practice, but may also be due to a range of other factors.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates the challenges for decision makers that arise because new evidence and evolving treatment practices create a gap between clinical trial data and real-world clinical practice and outcomes.

Notes

Author contributions

Bonny Parkinson, Rosalie Viney and Sallie-Anne Pearson contributed to the conception of the paper. Bonny Parkinson conducted the data analyses, with advice from the other co-authors. All co-authors contributed towards drafting and revising the intellectual content of the manuscript, and approved the final version for publication.

Compliances with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Bonny Parkinson, Marion Haas, Stephen Goodall and Preeyaporn Srasuebkul have no conflicts of interest to declare. Sallie-Anne Pearson is a member of the Drug Utilisation Sub-Committee of the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Rosalie Viney is a member of PBAC and its Economics Sub-Committee. The content of this paper does not reflect the views of the Australian Government Department of Health, the PBAC or its Sub-Committees.

Funding

The research reported in this paper is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Capacity Building Grant in Health Services Research (NHMRC ID: 571926), an Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Medicines and Ageing Grant (ID: 1060407) and a Cancer Australia Grant (ID: 568773).

Supplementary material

40273_2016_411_MOESM1_ESM.docx (69 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 68 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rothwell PM. Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Clin Trials. 2006;1(1):e9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferrario A, Kanavos P. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. Brussels: EMiNet; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: pembrolizumab, 50 mg vial, 100 mg vial, Keytruda. Canberra: DoH; 2015.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, Marshall D, Mullins CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health. 2007;10(5):326–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Annemans L, Aristides M, Kubin M. Real-life data: a growing need. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(5):8–12.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saturni S, Bellini F, Braido F, Paggiaro P, Sanduzzi A, et al. Randomized controlled trials and real life studies. Approaches and methodologies: a clinical point of view. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2014;27(2):129–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarrazin MS, Rosenthal GE. Finding pure and simple truths with administrative data. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1433–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96(3):179–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stafinski T, McCabe CJ, Menon D. Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(2):113–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, McKenna C, et al. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(46):1–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: crizotinib, 200 mg capsule, 60 and 250 mg capsule, 60, Xalkori. Canberra: DoH; 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medical Services Advisory Committee. Tests for HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer, assessment report, MSAC reference no. 38. Canberra: DoHA; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, et al. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235(4785):177–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(11):783–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marty M, Cognetti F, Maraninchi D, Snyder R, Mauriac L, Tubiana-Hulin M, et al. Randomized phase II trial of the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer administered as first-line treatment: the M77001 study group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(19):4265–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaufman B, Mackey JR, Clemens MR, Bapsy PP, Vaid A, Wardley A, et al. Trastuzumab plus anastrozole versus anastrozole alone for the treatment of postmenopausal women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III TAnDEM study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(33):5529–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gasparini G, Gion M, Mariani L, Papaldo P, Crivellari D, Filippelli G, et al. Randomized phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel alone versus trastuzumab plus weekly paclitaxel as first-line therapy of patients with HER-2 positive advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;101(3):355–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andersson M, Lidbrink E, Bjerre K, Wist E, Enevoldsen K, Jensen AB, et al. Phase III randomized study comparing docetaxel plus trastuzumab with vinorelbine plus trastuzumab as first-line therapy of metastatic or locally advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: the HERNATA study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(3):264–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burstein HJ, Keshaviah A, Baron AD, Hart RD, Lambert-Falls R, Marcom PK, et al. Trastuzumab plus vinorelbine or taxane chemotherapy for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer: the trastuzumab and vinorelbine or taxane study. Cancer. 2007;110(5):965–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: trastuzumab, powder for IV infusion, 150 mg, Herceptin. Canberra: DoHA; 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGrath C. Politicians inundated by breast cancer survivors. The World Today, ABC local radio [transcript]. Sydney: ABC; 2001. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s358933.htm. Accessed 28 Apr 2016.
  23. 23.
    Cresswell A. Life or death rations. The Australian. 2009. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/life-or-death-rations/story-e6frg6zo-1225779703837. Accessed 28 Apr 2016.
  24. 24.
    Perez-Ellis C, Goncalves A, Jacquemier J, Marty M, Girre V, Roche H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab (Herceptin) in HER2-overexpressed metastatic breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32(5):492–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poncet B, Bachelot T, Colin C, Ganne C, Jaisson-Hot I, Orfeuvre H, Peaud PY, Jacquin JP, et al. Use of the monoclonal antibody anti-HER2 trastuzumab in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Clin Oncol. 2008;31(4):363–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fabi A, Metro G, Ferretti G, Giannarelli D, Di Cosimo S, Papaldo P, et al. Do HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients benefit from the use of trastuzumab beyond disease progression? A mono-institutional experience and systematic review of observational studies. Breast. 2008;17(5):499–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gumus M, Davidson N, Bauknecht T, Soldatenkova V, Benhadji KA. Taxane-based mono- or combination therapy for managing metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in routine practice: a multinational prospective observational study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28(3):401–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olson EM, Najita JS, Sohl J, Arnaout A, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. Clinical outcomes and treatment practice patterns of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the post-trastuzumab era. Breast. 2013;22(4):525–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Extra JM, Antoine EC, Vincent-Salomon A, Delozier T, Kerbrat P, Bethune-Volters A, et al. Efficacy of trastuzumab in routine clinical practice and after progression for metastatic breast cancer patients: the observational Hermine study. Oncologist. 2010;15(8):799–809.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poncet B, Colin C, Bachelot T, Jaisson-Hot I, Derain L, Magaud L, et al. Treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a large observational study on adherence to French prescribing guidelines and financial cost of the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32(4):369–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yardley DA, Tripathy D, Brufsky AM, Rugo HS, Kaufman PA, Mayer M, et al. Long-term survivor characteristics in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer from registHER. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(11):2756–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lu CY, Srasuebkul P, Drew AK, Chen K, Ward RL, Pearson SA. Trastuzumab therapy in Australia: which patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer are assessed for cardiac function? Breast. 2013;22(4):482–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Joshi V, Pearson SA, Adelstein BA, Faedo M, Srasuebkul P, Dobbins T. Estimating disease progression using prescribing data in patients with metastatic disease: a pilot validation study, Independent Learning Project. Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2011.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Joshi V, Adelstein BA, Schaffer A, Srasuebkul P, Investigators EoCC, Dobbins T, et al. A proxy of cancer progression in dispensing claims: validation and performance [abstract no. 450]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(S1):221–2.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Joshi V, Adelstein BA, Srasuebkul P, Schaffer A, Dobbins T, Pearson SA. Estimating disease progression in metastatic cancer patients using dispensing data: a validation study [abstract no. 359]. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(S3):169.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Australian Government, Department of Human Services. Late stage metastatic breast cancer. http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/patients/late-breast-cancer.jsp. Accessed 17 Oct 2011
  37. 37.
    Pearson SA, Ringland CL, Ward RL. Trastuzumab and metastatic breast cancer: trastuzumab use in Australia—monitoring the effect of an expensive medicine access program. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3688–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits, efficient funding of chemotherapy—section 100 arrangements supplement, effective 1 January 2013. Canberra: DoHA; 2013.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cobleigh M, Frame D. Is trastuzumab every three weeks ready for prime time? J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(21):3900–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Trastuzumab, herceptin (rhuMAbHER2): clinical review briefing document. Maryland: US Food and Drug Administration; 2001.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cameron D, Casey M, Oliva C, Newstat B, Imwalle B, Geyer CE. Lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer: final survival analysis of a phase III randomized trial. Oncologist. 2010;15(9):924–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lu CY, Srasuebkul P, Drew AK, Ward RL, Pearson SA. Positive spillover effects of prescribing requirements: increased cardiac testing in patients treated with trastuzumab for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer. Intern Med J. 2012;42(11):1229–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mealing NM, Dobbins TA, Pearson SA. Validation and application of a death proxy in adult cancer patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(7):742–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Commonwealth Government of Australia. Budget 2011–12, mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, Appendix A. Canberra: Department of Finance; 2011.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Medical Services Advisory Committee. HER2 ISH testing for access to trastuzumab for neoadjuvant breast cancer, public summary document, MSAC application no. 1230. Canberra: DoHA; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonny Parkinson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rosalie Viney
    • 2
  • Marion Haas
    • 2
  • Stephen Goodall
    • 2
  • Preeyaporn Srasuebkul
    • 4
  • Sallie-Anne Pearson
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for the Health EconomyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE)University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Medicines Policy Research Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Faculty of PharmacyThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations