A cutting-edge treatment for blood cancer in children with promising short-term remission rates has nevertheless come under intense scrutiny due to its unprecedented cost.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the most commonly diagnosed pediatric cancer. Though treatment advances have driven five-year survival rates above 90 percent, relapse is common and ALL remains a leading cause of death from childhood cancer. Those surviving relapse typically require hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) to remain in remission.

The Food and Drug Administration last year approved tisagenlecleucel as the first anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory pediatric ALL. While tisagenlecleucel-induced remission rates are encouraging compared with those of established therapies — more than 80 percent compared with less than 50 percent — a one-time infusion costs $475,000.

That makes it one of  the most expensive oncologic therapies out there, even though no studies exist to show how the therapy maintains remission in the long term.

So Stanford Health Policy’s John K. Lin, Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert and Douglas K. Owens, in collaboration with Kara Davis, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Stanford’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, set out to determine whether the treatment is cost-effective. 

Their study was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“CAR-T cells are an exciting new therapy to help us cure more patients with ALL,” said Davis. “They use a patient’s own immune system to precisely target their leukemia and remission rates are impressive for patients with relapsed disease.”

The researchers note, however, it remains unknown whether tisagenlecleucel is sufficient to cure relapsed or refractory disease without a transplant.

Not only is it a very expensive treatment, it also has expensive and serious side effects, such as cytokine release syndrome, which can cause symptoms ranging from fevers and muscle aches to lethal drops in blood pressure and difficulty breathing, requiring ICU-level care.

“Given [its] high cost and broad applicability in other malignancies, a pressing question for policymakers, payers, and clinicians is whether the therapy’s cost represents reasonable value,” the authors wrote.

In order to evaluate the economic value of tisagenlecleucel, the authors created a computer simulation that modeled children with relapsed or refractory ALL. Since the durability of the therapy’s effects are unknown, they evaluated the therapy at different levels of long-term effectiveness.

Through their analyses, the authors found that at the simulation’s most optimistic projections, patients receiving tisagenlecleucel would, on average, live over a decade longer than those receiving alternative therapies. At these projections, the therapy would be cost-effective. However, at more modest long-term outcomes, its clinical and economic benefits declined.

Image

“The durability of CAR-T cell therapy is the main question. For many children with relapsed or refractory ALL, their disease is fatal — if the therapy results in sustained remissions, it would represent an important advance,” said lead author Lin, who is a VA Health Services Research and Development Fellow at Stanford Health Policy.

In the end, the researchers concluded that at tisagenlecleucel’s current price, its economic value is “uncertain,” as the true cost-effectiveness depends on its long-term performance, which has yet to be determined. They noted that substantial price reductions would improve its cost-effectiveness even if its long-term performance is relatively modest.

“A commonly asked question for many expensive, novel therapies is why can’t prices be lowered at least until we know how well they work,” said Goldhaber-Fiebert. 

The “Catch-22” here is that long-term effectiveness data are needed to justify a drug’s price, but current uncertainty about its effectiveness, along with its high price, means developing the data to justify its price occurs much more slowly.

“CAR-T is an individually tailored treatment that has thus far been produced for a relatively small number of patients,” Goldhaber-Fiebert said. “Its current production costs may well be very high, and certainly the companies that have spent heavily on its research and development are interested in achieving returns on their investments.”

When the effectiveness of a therapy is uncertain, some pharmaceutical companies and health policy experts have proposed something called outcomes-based payment, which is essentially a “money-back guarantee” if the therapy doesn’t work as intended.

Novartis, which developed tisagenlecleucel, has a money-back guarantee; if the patient does not achieve initial remission within the first month, they are not responsible for the payment of the therapy.

“However, we find that because most children have an initial remission, this does not materially improve cost-effectiveness,” Lin said.

He suggested that if the money-back guarantee were extended to see whether the patient relapses within a year, such a guarantee would improve the treatment’s cost-effectiveness.

The other co-authors of the study are James I. Barnes, Alex Q.L. Robinson, Benjamin J. Lerman, Brian C. Boursiquot and Yuan Jin Tan.

The United States is in the grip of an opioid epidemic, which is affecting millions of Americans and claiming thousands of lives. Many trace their opioid dependence back to their doctor’s office, the drugs prescribed for pain after an injury, surgery, or dental procedure. Were these painkillers over prescribed? Did drug manufacturers exaggerate opioids’ effectiveness while deliberately underplaying their danger? Did drug distributors and retailers take necessary steps to ensure that pills weren’t falling in to the wrong hands?  

In this Q&A, Stanford Law Professors Michelle Mello, an expert in health law and core faculty member at Stanford Health Policy, and Nora Freeman Engstrom, an expert in tort law and complex litigation, explain the scope of the opioid problem and discuss the latest cases and legal challenges.

Just how big of a problem is the opioid crisis in the United States? Can you describe the problem’s scope and seriousness? 

Engstrom: The opioid problem is monstrous. Some 2.4 million Americans have an opioid use disorder, and the epidemic has already claimed 300,000 American lives, including 42,000 in 2016 alone. Worse, if the problem isn’t addressed, death tolls will rise: opioids are on track to claim the lives of another half-million Americans within the next decade. That’s like wiping out the entire city of Atlanta. The economic cost is also astronomical. The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated that, in 2015, “the economic cost of the opioid crisis was $504.0 billion, or 2.8 percent of GDP.”

Mello: If there’s one picture that brings home the shocking toll, it’s this one, showing trends in U.S. deaths based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Nearly all of the “Poisoning” deaths shown here are opioid related. In terms of what’s killing Americans, opioids dwarf car crashes and guns.

Opioid lawsuits are now making news . Some of the actions are criminal, pursued by the states and federal government. Others of those suits are being initiated by cities, counties, and even states. What do those latter suits allege and what damages are the public plaintiffs trying to recover?

Engstrom: In the past four years, roughly 400 cities, counties, and states have initiated lawsuits seeking recovery for their additional public spending traceable to the opioid epidemic. The governmental entities claim they have been injured because defendants—typically, opioid manufacturers, distributors, and big retail pharmacies—have pumped opioids into the hands of their citizens and, in so doing, increased their spending for governmental services. Everything from policing, education, foster care, the provision of health care, even the operation of coroner’s officers, have all been made more expensive because, as compared to a healthy citizenry, an opioid-addicted populace is far less productive and needs much more by way of government help. Facing these spiraling costs, the governmental plaintiffs contend that the opioid defendants—who, they contend, caused and profited from this crisis—should foot the bill.

So, the typical defendants in these cases are opioid manufacturers, distributors, and big retail pharmacies. What is it that the plaintiffs are alleging these defendants did wrong?

Mello: There are some variations state to state, but for manufacturers, plaintiffs are typically claiming that they made false statements to prescribers and others that the drugs were safer and less addictive than alternatives, even when mounting evidence showed otherwise; that they failed to warn physicians and patients about the risks; and that the products were defectively designed—for example, because manufacturers didn’t make the pills tamper-resistant. For distributors and retailers, the claims are that these defendants failed to monitor, detect, investigate, and report suspicious orders of prescription drugs, even though reasonably prudent suppliers would have done so and the federal Controlled Substances Act requires suppliers to maintain effective controls against diversion of controlled substances to illicit markets.

Read More

Federal health advisors say women can now consider three options when it's time for their cervical cancer screening tests. The influential group, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), has expanded its recommendations for this potentially life-saving exam.

The new recommendations were published in the latest issue of JAMA.

Pap smears have saved many lives since they became available decades ago. Inspecting samples of cervical tissue for pre-cancerous changes is effective at catching possible cancer, and is still the go-to test for women aged 21 to 29, according to the USPSTF guidelines. But there's another option. 

"Most cervical cancer is caused by what's called the human papilloma virus, or HPV," says Stanford Health Policy's Dr. Douglas Owens, a professor of medicine at Stanford Medicine and vice-chair of the USPSTF. "And we now have tests for HPV and that's an important step forward."

Read the full NPR story