Budget Impact of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues: The Case in Brazil

Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is an economic assessment that estimates the financial consequences of adopting a new intervention. BIA is used to make informed reimbursement decisions, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Objectives: We systematically reviewed BIA studies associated with anti-diabetic drugs and assessed the extent to which international BIA guidelines were followed in these studies. Methods: We conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data knowledge Service platform from database inception to June 30, 2021. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for assessing BIAs. We extracted and compared the study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force to evaluate the guideline compliance of the included BIA. Results: A total of eighteen studies on the BIA for anti-diabetic drugs were identified. More than half studies were from developed countries. Seventeen studies were based on model and one study was based on real-world data. Overall, analysis considered a payer perspective, reported potential budget impacts over 1-5 years. Assumptions were mainly made about target population size, market share uptake of new interventions, and scope of cost. The data used for analysis varied among studies and was rarely justified. Model validation and sensitivity analysis were lacking in the current BIA studies. Rebate analysis was conducted in a few studies to explore the price discount that was required for new interventions to demonstrate cost equivalence to comparators. Conclusion: Existing studies evaluating budget impact for anti-diabetic drugs vary greatly in methodology, some of which showed low compliance to good practice guidelines. In order for the BIA to be useful for assisting in health plan decision-making, it is important for future studies to optimize compliance to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on BIA. Model validation and sensitivity analysis should also be improved in future BIA studies. Continued improvement of BIA using real-world data is necessary to ensure high-quality analyses and to provide reliable results.

The High "Cost" of Experimental Drugs Obtained Through Health Litigation in Brazil

Background

Brazilian patients have legal right to access unlicensed medicines undergoing clinical research, if there is evidence of efficacy and safety. This study investigated the occurrence of serious adverse events related to very high-cost medicines from clinical studies, expanded access and compassionate use programs, obtained by patients though health litigation.

Methods

A descriptive study using secondary data investigated unlicensed medicines obtained through lawsuits from 2010 to 2017, costing more than 1 million Brazilian reais (BRL), adjusted by the Brazilian Consumer Index to July 2017. Data sources were the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency Registry (DATAVISA) and Adverse Events in Clinical Studies (NotivisaEC) Databases. Medicines were categorized by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification to level 03 and events by the WHO Adverse Drug Reaction Terminology. The study received ethical approval by the University of Brasilia Institutional Research Board.

Results

In the period, 812 drugs were obtained through litigation, and of these, 78 exceeded cost of 1 million BRL; 44 of them presented reports of 1,248 serious adverse events. Total Brazilian Government expenditure with these drugs was 3.2 billion BRL. Class L04A (n=7) showed greater expenditures (over 1.8 billion BRL). One hundred ninety-six deaths occurred and L01X was the most involved category (49.5%). Most other serious events (n=419) and sequelae (n=10) were related to L01X.

Conclusion

Very high-cost drugs paid for by the government and obtained through health litigation presented deaths and serious adverse events in expanded access and compassionate use programs in Brazil.

The clinical effectiveness of insulin glargine in patients with Type I diabetes in Brazil: findings and implications

AIM

Published studies have challenged the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulins in Brazil with limited evidence of increased effectiveness despite considerably higher acquisition costs. However, still a controversy. Consequently, there is a need to address this.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of Type I diabetes patients receiving insulin glargine in Brazil following NPH insulin who met the criteria.

RESULTS

580 patients were enrolled. HbA_1c varied from 8.80 ± 1.98% in NPH insulin users to 8.54 ± 1.88% after insulin glargine for 6 months, which is not clinically significant. Frequency of glycemic control varied from 22.6% with NPH insulin to 26.2% with insulin glargine. No statistically significant difference was observed between controlled and still uncontrolled groups for all analyzed factors including type and frequency of insulin use and carbohydrate counting.

CONCLUSION

Limited differences between NPH insulins and insulin analogs in routine clinical care do not justify an appreciable cost difference.