Economics of ramucirumab for metastatic colorectal cancer

References

• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2013. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2013/, based on November 2015 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Tabernero J, Yoshino T, Cohn AL, et al. Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(5):499–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramucirumab mCRC. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available form: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ApprovedDrugs/ucm444496.htm.
   Google Scholar
• NCCN Guidelines: Colon cancer. Version 2.2016. cited 2016 May 12. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein DA, El-Rayes BF. Considering efficacy and cost, where does ramucirumab fit in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer? Oncologist. 2015;20(9):981–982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach PB. Ramucirumab for colon cancer and the problem of rising prices independent of benefits. Oncologist. 2015;20(9):983–984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeichner SB, Goldstein DA, Kohn C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine in gastrointestinal stromal tumor and gastric adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Oncol. Forthcoming 2016. Available from: http://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/7609
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein DA, Zeichner SB, Bartnik CM, et al. Metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review of the value of current therapies. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(1):1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Färkkilä N, Torvinen S, Sintonen H, et al. Costs of colorectal cancer in different states of the disease. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden). 2015;54(4):454–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang K, Lines LM, Lee DW, et al. Lifetime and treatment-phase costs associated with colorectal cancer: evidence from SEER-Medicare data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(2):198–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song X, Zhao Z, Barber B, et al. Cost of illness in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Med Econ. 2011;14(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. cited 2015 Nov 1. Available from: http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/
   Google Scholar
• Drug Pricing Files. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2015 Oct . cited 2015 Nov 1. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Part-B-Drugs/McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/2015ASPFiles.html
   Google Scholar
• Health, Medical Care Policy Information. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/
   Google Scholar
• DrugAbacus. Memorial Sloan Kettering Csncer Center. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: http://www.drugabacus.org/drug-abacus-tool/
   Google Scholar
• Medicare Laboratory Fee Schedule Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. cited 2015 Nov 1. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ClinicalLabFeeSched/Clinical-Laboratory-Fee-Schedule-Files.html
   Google Scholar
• Medicare Plan Finder. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. cited 2015 Jul 9. Available from: https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan/questions/home.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Cyramza (ramucirumab) prescribing information. Eli Lilly and Company. cited 2015 Nov 1. Available from: http://www.cyramzahcp.com/
   Google Scholar
• NHE Fact Sheet. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html
   Google Scholar
• Das A, Norton EC, Miller DC, et al. Adding a spending metric to medicare’s value-based purchasing program rewarded low-quality hospitals. Health Aff. 2016;35(5):898–906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas-Vega S, Mossialos E. Cancer drugs provide positive value in nine countries, but the united states lags in health gains per dollar spent. Health Aff. 2016;35(5):813–823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palozzo AC, Messori A. Comment on: disinvestment and value-based purchasing strategies for pharmaceuticals: an international review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(4):419–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• “Affordable Care Act”. US Department of Health and Human Services. cited 2016 Mar 28. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-law/read-the-law/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Walker S, Griffin S, Claxton K, et al. Appropriate methods for economic evaluation of programs with costs and effects extending across sectors. Value Health. 2012;15(7):A325.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan S, Daw J, Thomson P. International best practices for negotiating “Reimbursement Contracts” with price rebates from pharmaceutical companies. Health Aff. 2013;32(4):771–777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. third. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Life Tables. Center of Disease Control and Prevention. National Center of Health Statistics. cited 2016 Nov 3. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Archived consumer price index detailed report information. United States Department of Labor. cited 2015 Aug 1. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm
   Google Scholar
• Bach PB. Limits on medicare’s ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 5;360(6):626–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tumeh JW, Moore SG, Shapiro R, et al. Practical approach for using medicare data to estimate costs for cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Apr;5(2):153–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang Y, Baik SH, Fendrick AM, et al. Comparing local and regional variation in health care spending. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(18):1724–1731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force working group-6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein D, Joulain F, Naoshy S, et al. Assessing health-state utility values in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a utility study in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29(10):1203–1210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Färkkilä N, Sintonen H, Saarto T, et al. Health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(5):e215–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efficace F, Innominato PF, Bjarnason G, et al. Validation of patient’s self-reported social functioning as an independent prognostic factor for survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of an international study by the chronotherapy group of the european organisation for research and treatment of cancer. J Clin Oncology. 2008;26(12):2020–2026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bach PB, Conti RM, Muller RJ, et al. Overspending driven by oversized single dose vials increase leftover drug. BMJ. 2016;788(March):1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Blank PR, Loibl S, Linderholm BK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of VEGF-C: a novel predictive biomarker for response to bevacizumab in the neoadjuvant therapy of early breast cancer patients. 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:suppl; abstr e12079.
   Google Scholar
• Blank PR, Loibl SBK, Linderholm BK, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of VEGF-A testing to predict response to bevacizumab (BEV) as a component of neo-adjuvant therapy of early HER-2 negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(suppl 3):iii16–iii17.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs CS, Tomasek J, Yong CJ, et al. Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England). 2014;383(9911):31–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Australia Government Department of Health. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/home
   Google Scholar
• NICE statistics: Technology appraisal decisions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/nice-statistics
   Google Scholar
• Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin and either fluorouracil plus folinic acid or capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer |Guidance and guidelines |NICE. n.d. cited 2015 Nov 1. Available from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta212
   Google Scholar
• Aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy for treating metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy |Guidance and guidelines |NICE. n.d. [cited 2016 Jun 20]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta307
   Google Scholar
• Carter HE, Zannino D, John Simes R, et al. The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab when added to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin-C, in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Australasian phase III MAX study. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2014;50(3):535–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ramucirumab for treating advanced gastric cancer or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma pre previously viously treated with chemotherapy - Information for the public. Nice Guidelines T[Q378]. 2016 Jan; 1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Graham MS, Knox HN, Hess LM, et al. Cost-effectiveness in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the U.S. ISPOR 18th Annual European Congress; 2015 Nov 7–11; Milan, Italy. Sponsored by Eli Lilly and company and/or one of its subsidiaries.
   Google Scholar
• Cyramza for Advanced GC or GEJ Adenocarcinoma. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/cyramza-advanced-gc-or-gej-adenocarcinoma-details
   Google Scholar
• Ramucirumab. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm394260.htm
   Google Scholar
• Ramucirumab in combination with paclitaxel. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm421930.htm
   Google Scholar
• Wilke H, Muro K, Van Cutsem E, et al. Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(11):1224–1235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Batran SE, Van Cutsem E, Oh SC, et al. Quality-of-life and performance status results from the phase III RAINBOW study of RAM plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):673–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramucirumab. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/approveddrugs/ucm426735.htm
   Google Scholar
• Garon EB, Ciuleanu TE, Arrieta O, et al. Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England). 2014;384(9944):665–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérol M, Ciuleanu TE, Arrieta O, et al. Quality of life results from the phase 3 REVEL randomized clinical trial of ramucirumab-plus-docetaxel versus placebo-plus-docetaxel in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy. Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2016;93:95–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Qin J, Yan H, et al. Cost effective analysis of ramucirumab and nivolumab in the second-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer using open claim dataset 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(suppl; abstr e18282).
   Google Scholar
• Chandra A, Shafrin J, Dhawan R. Utility of cancer value frameworks for patients, payers, and physicians. JAMA. 2016;315(19):2069–2070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. cited 2016 Jun 20 Available from: http://icer-review.org/topics/
   Google Scholar
• NCCN framework for resource stratification of NCCN guidelines (NCCN Framework™). National Comprehensive Cancer Network. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/framework/
   Google Scholar
• Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardized, 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(8):1547–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ, et al. The NICE cost effectiveness threshold: what it is and what it means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;2(9):733–744.
   Google Scholar
• Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S, et al. Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients? Health Econ. 2015;24(1):1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocchi A, Menon D, Verma S, et al. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. Value Health. 2008;11(4):771–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CADTH FAQs. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth
   Google Scholar
• Ramucirumab (Cyramza). European Medicines Agency. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002829/human_med_001825.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124.
   Google Scholar
• Ebara T, Ohno T, Nakano T. Quantitative medical cost-effectiveness analysis of molecular-targeting cancer drugs in Japan. DARU J Fac Pharm Sci. 2013;21(1):40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Messori A, De Rosa M, Pani L. Alternative pricing strategies for cancer drugs. JAMA. 2015;313(8):857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterlund P, Sorbye H, Pfeiffer P, et al. Drug costs and benefits of medical treatments in high-unmet need solid tumours in the Nordic countries. J Cancer Policy. 2016;7:12–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauwels K, Huys I, Casteels M, et al. Market access of cancer drugs in European countries: improving resource allocation. Target Oncol. 2014;9(2):95–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Barrios JM, Pérez Alcántara F, Crespo Palomo C, et al. The use of cost per life year gained as a measurement of cost-effectiveness in Spain: a systematic review of recent publications. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(6):723–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinalbo J, Bowen D, Camarero J, et al. Early market access of cancer drugs in the EU. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(1):96–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bending M, Hutton J, McGrath C. A comparison of pharmaceutical reimbursement agencies’ processes and methods in France and Scotland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):187–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramucirumab (Cyramza). Scottish Medicines Consortium. cited 2016 Jun 20. Available from: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/SMC_Advice/Advice/1156_16_ramucirumab_Cyrmaza
   Google Scholar
• Barrios JMR, Alcántara FP, Palomo CC, et al. The use of cost per life year gained as a measurement of cost-effectiveness in Spain: a systematic review of recent publications. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(6):723–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franken M, Le Polain M, Cleemput I, et al. Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(4):349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihajlović J, Dolk C, Tolley K, et al. Reimbursement of targeted cancer therapies within 3 different European health care systems. Clin Ther. 2015;37(2):474–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein DA, Chen Q, Ayer T, et al. First- and second-line bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1112–1118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K, et al. Out-of-pocket payment and cost-effectiveness of XELOX and XELOX plus bevacizumab therapy: from the perspective of metastatic colorectal cancer patients in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010;15(3):256–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan. Clin Ther. 2007;29(10):2256–2267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aflibercept in combination with irinotecan and fluorouracil-based therapy for treating metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following prior oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy | Guidance and guidelines | NICE. (n.d.). [cited 2016 Jun 20]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta307.
   Google Scholar
• Echave M, Oyagüez I, Lamas MJ, et al. Aflibercept in combination with folfiri in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness based on velour best efficacy subgroup post-hoc analysis. Value Health. 2015 Nov;18(7):A454.
   Google Scholar
• Bach PB. Indication-specific pricing for cancer drugs. JAMA. 2014;312(16):1629–1630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackstone EA, Joseph PF. The economics of biosimilars. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(8):469–478.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li E, Subramanian J, Anderson S, et al. Development of biosimilars in an era of oncologic drug shortages. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:3247–3255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson JG. Clinical data and regulatory issues of biosimilar products. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(16 Suppl):s320–S30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahn L. Focus on the patent cliff to maximize generic savings. Managed Care (Langhorne, Pa.). 2012;21(11):28–32.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Cutsem E, Yoshino T, Hocke J, et al. Rationale and design for the LUME-Colon 1 study: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of nintedanib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer refractory to standard treatment. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016 Mar;15(1):91–94.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae YHJ, Mullins CD. Do value thresholds for oncology drugs differ from non-oncology drugs? J Manag Care Specialty Pharm. 2014;20(11):1086–1092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(14):1637–1641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers JD, Neumann PJ, Buxton MJ. Does medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med Decis Making. 2010;30(4):E14–E27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cleemput I, Ney M, Thiry N, et al. Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):71–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7(5):518–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drasga RE, Einhorn LH. Why oncologists should support single-payer national health insurance. J Oncol Pract /American Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;10(1):7–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ. 2008;336(7638):251–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garber AM, McClellan MB. Satisfaction guaranteed — “Payment by Results” for biologic agents. New England J Med. 2007;16(357):1575–1577.
   Google Scholar
• Bennette CS, Richards C, Sullivan SD, et al. Steady increase in prices for oral anticancer drugs after market launch suggests a lack of competitive pressure. Health Aff. 2016;35(5):805–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogler S, Vitry A, Babar ZUD. Cancer drugs in 16 European countries, Australia, and New Zealand: a cross-country price comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;17(1):39–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GBD 2013 DALYs and HALE Collaborators. Global, regional, and national disability adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990-2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition. Lancet. 2015;386(10009):2145–2191.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarzer R, Rochau U, Saverno K, et al. Systematic overview of cost-effectiveness thresholds in ten countries across four continents. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4(5):485–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar