Performing Cost-Effectiveness Analyses to Support Policy Making: Key Lessons From the Assessment of Aducanumab

New International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) Open-Source Model Framework for the Health Technology Assessment of Early Alzheimer's Disease Treatment: Development and Use Cases

OBJECTIVES

Reimbursement decisions for new Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments are informed by economic evaluations. An open-source model with intuitive structure for model cross-validation can support the transparency and credibility of such evaluations. We describe the new International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) open-source model framework (version 2) for the health-economic evaluation of early AD treatment and use it for cross-validation and addressing uncertainty.

METHODS

A cohort state-transition model using a categorized composite domain (cognition and function) was developed by replicating an existing reference model and testing it for internal validity. Then, features of existing Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and Alzheimer's Disease Archimedes Condition-Event Simulator (AD-ACE) models assessing lecanemab treatment were implemented for model cross-validation. Additional uncertainty scenarios were performed on choice of efficacy outcome from trial, natural disease progression, treatment effect waning and stopping rules, and other methodological choices. The model is available open-source as R code, spreadsheet, and web-based version via https://github.com/ronhandels/IPECAD.

RESULTS

In the IPECAD model incremental life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gains and cost savings were 21% to 31% smaller compared with the ICER model and 36% to 56% smaller compared with the AD-ACE model. IPECAD model results were particularly sensitive to assumptions on treatment effect waning and stopping rules and choice of efficacy outcome from trial.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the ability of a new IPECAD open-source model framework for researchers and decision makers to cross-validate other (Health Technology Assessment submission) models and perform additional uncertainty analyses, setting an example for open science in AD decision modeling and supporting important reimbursement decisions.

What is a fair price for a medicine? Establishing the main elements of a fair price based on the current policy debate

OBJECTIVE

Unfair medicines prices have been discussed widely as an obstacle for patient access. This article aims to structure the discussion about fair pricing of medicines, analyses the elements for a fair price, and assesses its practical implications.

METHODS

A systematic literature research has been undertaken and complemented by gray literature. Definitions and elements of a fair price have been extracted from the sample, categorized via a thematic and a quantitative analysis, and mirrored against the traditional framework of 'iustum pretium' (fair price).

RESULTS

The most often attributes of a fair price mentioned were affordability (n = 30), followed by value and research and development (R&D) investment (n = 20). Other frequently mentioned attributes are profitability (n = 19), transparency of R&D costs (n = 18), cost-effectiveness (n = 17), and manufacturing (n = 14). Nearly all definitions present fair price as a balance between different objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Most publications stipulate that medicines are a common good and should be affordable. At the same time, most publications also propose a pricing approach based on covering costs for R&D and/or on value. Consequently, most of the attempts to clarify fair price result in a value-affordability dilemma, which does not necessarily warrant patient access. Many social health systems implement pricing regardless of the debate. This systematic review offers a set of attributes for fair price and helps refining the existing pricing and reimbursement regulations. Once complemented by empirical datapoints, it provides the basis for developing a framework for fair pricing.