IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i6d10.1007_s40273-022-01147-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling the Ex Ante Clinical Real Option Value in an Innovative Therapeutic Area: ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Woojung Lee

    (University of Washington)

  • William B. Wong

    (Genentech Inc.)

  • Stacey Kowal

    (Genentech Inc.)

  • Louis P. Garrison

    (University of Washington)

  • David L. Veenstra

    (University of Washington)

  • Meng Li

    (University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center)

Abstract

Objectives A drug that improves survival and/or disease progression can create real option value (ROV)—the additional health gain from future innovations enabled by a longer survival. ROV can be a relevant consideration for both clinical and payer decision-makers. We aimed to estimate the ex ante ROV for first-line (1L) alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods We developed a Markov model to estimate life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with 1L alectinib versus 1L crizotinib due to potential future second-line (2L) drugs. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase 3 trial of 1L alectinib and phase 2 trial of 2L brigatinib. We identified drugs being studied in phase 2 and 3 trials in ALK-positive NSCLC at the time of alectinib’s 1L approval and projected the likelihood and timing of their arrival and their potential efficacy based on publicly available data. Results The discounted incremental LYs and QALYs for alectinib increased by 12.9% (95% CR − 2.96%, 34.82%; 1.25 vs. 1.11) and 11.2% (95% CR − 2.14%, 29.29%; 1.03 vs. 0.92), respectively, after accounting for ROV. The incremental ROV of alectinib was sensitive to the projected efficacy of future drugs, uptake level, and the hazard ratio of progression-free survival of alectinib (vs. crizotinib). Conclusions Ex ante ROV can be a significant value consideration in therapeutic areas with high levels of expected innovation. The potential efficacy of future drugs and incremental survival with alectinib at the projected time of arrival are important considerations in assessing ROV.

Suggested Citation

  • Woojung Lee & William B. Wong & Stacey Kowal & Louis P. Garrison & David L. Veenstra & Meng Li, 2022. "Modeling the Ex Ante Clinical Real Option Value in an Innovative Therapeutic Area: ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 623-631, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01147-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01147-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01147-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01147-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tomas J. Philipson & Gary Becker & Dana Goldman & Kevin M. Murphy, 2010. "Terminal Care and The Value of Life Near Its End," NBER Working Papers 15649, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Tomas J. Philipson & Gary Becker & Dana Goldman & Kevin M. Murphy, 2010. "Terminal Care and The Value of Life Near Its End," NBER Working Papers 15649, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Thornton Snider Julia & Romley John A. & Vogt William B. & Philipson Tomas J., 2012. "The Option Value of Innovation," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meng Li & Anirban Basu & Caroline S. Bennette & David L. Veenstra & Louis P. Garrison, 2019. "Do cancer treatments have option value? Real‐world evidence from metastatic melanoma," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(7), pages 855-867, July.
    2. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    3. Kuhn, Michael & Wrzaczek, Stefan & Prskawetz, Alexia & Feichtinger, Gustav, 2011. "Externalities in a life cycle model with endogenous survival," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 627-641.
    4. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 30-38.
    5. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Thornton Snider Julia & Romley John A. & Vogt William B. & Philipson Tomas J., 2012. "The Option Value of Innovation," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Alison Pearce & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Are the True Impacts of Adverse Events Considered in Economic Models of Antineoplastic Drugs? A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(6), pages 619-637, December.
    8. Kuhn, Michael & Wrzaczek, Stefan & Prskawetz, Alexia & Feichtinger, Gustav, 2015. "Optimal choice of health and retirement in a life-cycle model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 186-212.
    9. Ariel Goldszmidt & John A. List & Robert D. Metcalfe & Ian Muir & V. Kerry Smith & Jenny Wang, 2020. "The Value of Time in the United States: Estimates from Nationwide Natural Field Experiments," Working Papers 2020-179, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    10. Mark Pennington & Rachel Baker & Werner Brouwer & Helen Mason & Dorte Gyrd Hansen & Angela Robinson & Cam Donaldson & the EuroVaQ Team, 2015. "Comparing WTP Values of Different Types of QALY Gain Elicited from the General Public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 280-293, March.
    11. Eric Budish & Benjamin N. Roin & Heidi Williams, 2015. "Do Firms Underinvest in Long-Term Research? Evidence from Cancer Clinical Trials," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2044-2085, July.
    12. Joseph Cook & Joseph Golec & John Vernon & George Pink, 2011. "Real Option Value and Path Dependence in Oncology Innovation," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 225-238.
    13. Thornton Snider Julia & Seabury Seth & Tebeka Mahlet Gizaw & Wu Yanyu & Batt Katharine, 2018. "The Option Value of Innovative Treatments for Metastatic Melanoma," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 1-10, June.
    14. Dong Chen & Dennis Petrie & Kam Tang & Dongjie Wu, 2020. "Private Information and Misinformation in Subjective Life Expectancy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 1061-1083, December.
    15. Shafrin, Jason & Skornicki, Michelle & Brauer, Michelle & Villeneuve, Julie & Lees, Michael & Hertel, Nadine & Penrod, John R. & Jansen, Jeroen, 2018. "An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 607-613.
    16. Joseph P Cook, 2014. "Real Option Value and Path Dependence in Oncology Innovation," Seminar Briefing 000077, Office of Health Economics.
    17. Fink Simonsen, Nicolai & Kjær, Trine, 2021. "New Evidence of Health State Dependent Utility of Consumption: A combined survey and register study," DaCHE discussion papers 2021:2, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    18. Joseph P. Cook & Joseph Golec, 2017. "How excluding some benefits from value assessment of new drugs impacts innovation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1813-1825, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01147-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.