Challenges and opportunities with routinely collected data on the utilization of cancer medicines. Perspectives from health authority personnel across 18 European countries

Pisana, Alice and Wettermark, Björn and Kurdi, Amanj and Tubić, Biljana and Pontes, Caridad and Zara, Corinne and Van Ganse, Eric and Petrova, Guenka and Mardare, Ileana and Fürst, Jurij and Roig-Izquierdo, Marta and Melien, Oyvind and Vella Bonanno, Patricia and Banzi, Rita and Marković-Peković, Vanda and Mitkova, Zornitsa and Godman, Brian (2022) Challenges and opportunities with routinely collected data on the utilization of cancer medicines. Perspectives from health authority personnel across 18 European countries. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 13. 873556. ISSN 1663-9812 (https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.873556)

[thumbnail of Pisana-etal-FIP-2022-Challenges-and-opportunities-with-routinely-collected-data]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Pisana_etal_FIP_2022_Challenges_and_opportunities_with_routinely_collected_data.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (1MB)| Preview

Abstract

Background: Rising expenditure for new cancer medicines is accelerating concerns that their costs will become unsustainable for universal healthcare access. Moreover, early market access of new oncology medicines lacking appropriate clinical evaluation generates uncertainty over their cost-effectiveness and increases expenditure for unknown health gain. Patient-level data can complement clinical trials and generate better evidence on the effectiveness, safety and outcomes of these new medicines in routine care. This can support policy decisions including funding. Consequently, there is a need for improving datasets for establishing real-world outcomes of newly launched oncology medicines. Aim: To outline the types of available datasets for collecting patient-level data for oncology among different European countries. Additionally, to highlight concerns regarding the use and availability of such data from a health authority perspective as well as possibilities for cross-national collaboration to improve data collection and inform decision-making. Methods: A mixed methods approach was undertaken through a cross-sectional questionnaire followed-up by a focus group discussion. Participants were selected by purposive sampling to represent stakeholders across different European countries and healthcare settings. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantifiable questions, whilst content analysis was employed for open-ended questions. Results: 25 respondents across 18 European countries provided their insights on the types of datasets collecting oncology data, including hospital records, cancer, prescription and medicine registers. The most available is expenditure data whilst data concerning effectiveness, safety and outcomes is less available, and there are concerns with data validity. A major constraint to data collection is the lack of comprehensive registries and limited data on effectiveness, safety and outcomes of new medicines. Data ownership limits data accessibility as well as possibilities for linkage, and data collection is time-consuming, necessitating dedicated staff and better systems to facilitate the process. Cross-national collaboration is challenging but the engagement of multiple stakeholders is a key step to reach common goals through research. Conclusion: This study acts as a starting point for future research on patient-level databases for oncology across Europe. Future recommendations will require continued engagement in research, building on current initiatives and involving multiple stakeholders to establish guidelines and commitments for transparency and data sharing.

CORE (COnnecting REpositories)