Future drug prices and cost-effectiveness analyses

Challenges of Incorporating Life Cycle Drug Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Models: A Review of Methods and Modeling Suggestions

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a review of existing methods used to incorporate life cycle drug pricing (LCDP) in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), identify common methodological challenges, and suggest modeling approaches for prospectively implementing LCDP in CEA.

METHODS

Two complementary searches were conducted in PubMed, combined with hand searching and reference mining, to identify English language full-text articles that explored (1) how drug prices change over time and (2) methods used to apply dynamic pricing in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs). Relevant articles were reviewed, and authors discussed the common methodological practices used in the literature and their associated challenges on prospectively implementing LCDP in CEMs. For each key challenge identified, we provide modeling suggestions to address the issue.

RESULTS

We screened 1200 studies based on title and abstract; 117 were reviewed for eligibility, and 47 individual studies were included across both searches. Variations in prices over a product's life cycle are complex and multifactorial, and models applying LCDP in CEA varied in their methodology. We identified 4 key challenges to modeling LCDP in CEA, including how to model price trends before and after loss of exclusivity, how to capture the effect of price changes on future patient cohorts, and how to report results.

CONCLUSION

Accurately quantifying the impact of LCDP requires careful consideration of multiple aspects pertaining to both the evolution of drug prices and how to reflect these in CEA. Although uncertainties remain, our findings can aid implementation and evaluation of LCDP in economic evaluations.

Impact of Incorporating Future Mandatory Price Reductions with Generic Drug Entry on the Cost-Effectiveness of New Drugs: A Policy Simulation Study of Dupilumab in Atopic Dermatitis Treatment

The introduction of high-cost medications often poses challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for drug insurance coverage. Incorporating future price reductions for these medications may enhance their cost-effectiveness. We examined the influence of future cost reductions mandated by the national insurer's equal pricing for equivalent drugs (EPED) policy on the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab, a biologic drug for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in the Korean healthcare system. We conducted a policy simulation study using semi-Markovian cost utility analysis of dupilumab in combination with supportive care (SC) versus SC alone, with and without the EPED policy adjustment. The EPED would lower dupilumab's price to 70% following the entry of a biosimilar drug in 10.3 years. Scenario analyses quantified the impact of changing time to the EPED, chemical versus biological designation, response criteria, discount rates, and time horizons on the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) and acceptability with and without EPED adjustment. The EPED adjustment of dupilumab's future price significantly improved its cost-effectiveness, with a 9.7% decrease in ICER and a substantial 14.6% increase in acceptability. Assuming EPED in 5 years, the ICER fell below the predefined willingness-to-pay threshold. If dupilumab were a chemical drug, EPED adjustment demonstrated a 19.1% increase in acceptability. Incorporating future cost reductions via the EPED system in economic evaluations is crucial, especially for drugs facing imminent generic entry. This study underscores the importance of EPED adjustment in the cost-effectiveness analysis of innovative medications, especially for those nearing willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Used as Treatment in Patients with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been recently used as therapeutic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Recent clinical trials have shown that they are beneficial for reducing the risk of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure (HF). A comprehensive review regarding the cost-effectiveness of different SGLT2 inhibitors for HF treatment may be necessary to help clinicians and decision-makers select the most cost-effective HF treatment option.

OBJECTIVE

This study conducted a systematic review of economic evaluation studies of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and EBSCOhost to identify published economic evaluation studies on SGLT2 inhibitors for HF treatment until May 2023. Studies on the economic evaluation of SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF were included. We extracted information such as country, population, intervention, type of model, health status, and conclusion of cost-effectiveness.

RESULT

Of the 410 studies, 27 were finally selected. All economic evaluation studies used the Markov model, and commonly included health status as stable HF, hospitalization due to HF, and death. All dapagliflozin studies focused on patients with HFrEF (n = 13), and dapagliflozin was cost-effective in 14 countries, but not in the Philippines. All empagliflozin studies focused on the patients with HFrEF also showed the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin (n = 11). However, empagliflozin use in patients with HFpEF was determined to be cost-effective in studies in Finland, China, and Australia studies but not in studies in Thailand and the USA.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies reported the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF. However, the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin differed from country to country regarding patients with HFpEF. We suggest that further economic evaluation of SGLT2 inhibitors should focus on patients with HFpEF in more countries.

The Influence of US Drug Price Dynamics on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Biologics

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of drug price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses.

METHODS

We evaluated scenarios involving typical US drug price increases during the exclusivity period and price decreases after the loss of exclusivity (LOE). Worked examples are presented using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessments of tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma and targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis.

RESULTS

Tezepelumab case: yearly 2% price increases during the period of exclusivity and a post-LOE price decrease of 25% yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained that increased over the base case from $430 300 to $444 600 (+3.2%). Yearly 2% price increases followed by a steeper post-LOE price reduction of 40% resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $401 400 (6.8% reduction vs the base case). Rheumatoid arthritis case: incorporating post-LOE price reductions for etanercept (intervention) and adalimumab (comparator) ranging from 25% to 40% yielded an incremental cost per QALY of $121 000 and $122 300, respectively (< 3% increase from the base case of $119 200/QALY). Including a 2% yearly price increase during the projected exclusivity periods of both intervention and comparator increased the cost per QALY gained by > 60%.

CONCLUSION

Two biologic treatment cases incorporating price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses had varied impacts on the cost-effectiveness ratio depending on the magnitude of pre-LOE price increase and post-LOE price decrease and whether the LOE also affected the comparator. Yearly price increase magnitude during the period of exclusivity, among other factors, may counterbalance the effects of lower post-LOE intervention prices.

Incorporating Dynamic Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Are Known Unknowns Valuable?

BACKGROUND

Current practice in health technology assessment (HTA) of pharmaceuticals conducts cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) based on a static price or the estimated price at market launch. Recent publications suggest incorporating dynamic pricing. To test the feasibility and importance of including dynamic pricing, we compared the standard static approach to four dynamic scenarios by replicating US-based HTA evaluations with dynamic pricing inputs.

METHODS

The four case examples included omalizumab (Xolair®) for the treatment of allergic asthma, elagolix (Orilissa®) for the treatment of endometriosis, ocrelizumab (Ocrevus®) for the treatment of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), and dupilumab (Dupixent®) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The primary outcome was the relative percentage change in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two dynamic pricing scenarios versus static pricing. Secondary outcomes included the absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case and an assessment of decision uncertainty.

RESULTS

Base-case ICERs were $327,000, $102,000, $700,000, and $102,000 for allergic asthma, endometriosis, PPMS, and AD, respectively. Across scenarios and case examples, the range of ICERs versus base-case varied from decreases of 56% to increases of 232%. The absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case ranged from decreases of $120,000 to increases of $758,000. Conclusions on cost effectiveness were altered in 2/16 scenarios across the four case examples.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the decision context that US payers face, with prices varying over time, findings suggest further research to reduce uncertainty around price trajectories, as well as conducting or updating multiple assessments over the lifecycle of pharmaceutical products.

The Effect of the Drug Life Cycle Price on Cost-Effectiveness: Case Studies Using Real-World Pricing Data

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) generally assume constant drug prices throughout the model time horizon, yet it is known that prices are not constant, often with price decreases near loss of exclusivity (LOE). This study explores the impact of using dynamic drug-specific prices on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using selected reproduced case studies.

METHODS

Case studies were selected following explicit criteria to reflect a variety of drug characteristics. For each drug, a published CEA model was identified, replicated, and modified with dynamic real-world pricing data, to compare ICERs based on constant drug prices with estimates obtained when including drug life cycle pricing. The impact of dynamic real-world pricing-inclusive LOE-was analyzed using a single patient cohort and multiple cohorts over time.

RESULTS

Fluvastatin, alendronic acid + colecalciferol combination therapy, letrozole and clopidogrel were selected as case studies. Inclusion of real-world pricing data compared with applying constant prices reduced the ICER in a single-cohort setting up to 43%. In the multicohort analyses, further reductions of the ICERs were observed of up to 113%. The ICERs were sensitive to the period of drug usage relative to the models' time horizons, the relative proportions of drug costs in the overall treatment costs, and timing of LOE compared with the cost year of the original analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming dynamic drug prices may lead to more representative ICER estimates. Future CEAs for drugs could account for predicted and disaggregated life cycle price developments based on retrospective data.

Historical and projected public spending on drugs for rare diseases in Canada between 2010 and 2025

Objective

Rare diseases are life-threatening, debilitating, or serious chronic conditions that affect < 50/100,000 people. Canadians can only access approximately 60% of drugs for rare diseases (DRDs), which is partially related to high per-patient costs and payers’ affordability concerns. However, limiting access to DRDs can reduce survival and quality of life among patients and caregivers. Therefore, we projected Canadian non-oncology DRD spending relative to total public drug spending to provide perspective for decision makers.

Methods

Candidate historical (2010–2020) and pipeline (2021–2025) Canadian-marketed non-oncology DRDs were identified using definitions from the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible DRDs. Public payer claims data, prevalence rates, regulatory, and health technology assessment factors were used to project DRD spending in relation to total Canadian public drug spending.

Results

We included 42 historical DRDs and 122 pipeline DRDs. Public spending on DRDs grew from $14.8 million in 2010 (11 DRDs) to $380.9 million in 2020, then a projected $527.6 million in 2021 (59 potential DRDs) and $1.6 billion in 2025 (164 potential DRDs). Projected DRD spending increased from 3.2% of $16.5 billion public drug spending in 2021 to 8.3% of $19.4 billion in 2025. These projections do not include confidential manufacturer discounts, health outcome-related offsets, or additional safety-related costs.

Conclusions

Projected DRD spending shows robust growth but remains a fraction of total public drug spending. Limiting DRD access because of this growth is not aligned with Canadian patient or societal values. Given the renewed interest in a Canadian DRD framework, our results may help guide discussions that aim to balance control of public drug spending with the well-being of patients with rare diseases.

Do Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Account for Drug Genericization? A Literature Review and Assessment of Implications

OBJECTIVES

We investigated how health technology assessment (HTA) organizations around the world have handled drug genericization (an allowance for future generic drug entry and subsequent drug price declines) in their guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). We also analyzed a large sample of published CEAs to examine prevailing practices in the field.

METHODS

We reviewed 43 HTA guidelines to determine whether and how they addressed drug genericization in their CEAs. We also selected a sample of 270 US-based CEAs from the Tufts Medical Center's CEA Registry, restricting the sample to studies on pharmaceuticals published from 1991 to 2019 and to analyses taking a lifetime time horizon. We determined whether each CEA examined genericization (and if so, whether in base case or sensitivity analyses), and how inclusion of genericization influenced the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Fourteen (33%) of the 43 HTA guidelines mention genericization for CEAs and 4 (9%) recommend that base case analyses include assumptions about future drug price changes due to genericization. Most published CEAs (95%) do not include assumptions about future generic prices for intervention drugs. Only 2% include such assumptions about comparator drugs. Most studies (72%) conduct sensitivity analyses on drug prices unrelated to genericization.

CONCLUSIONS

The omission of assumptions about genericization means that CEAs may misrepresent the long run opportunity costs for drugs. The field needs clearer guidance for when CEAs should account for genericization, and for the inclusion of other price dynamics that might influence a drug's cost-effectiveness.

A proportional rule for setting reimbursement prices of new drugs and its mathematical consistency

BACKGROUND

Value-based pricing (VBP) of new drugs has been suggested both as a way to control health expenditures and to maximize health benefits based on the available resources. The purpose of this work is to present a simple mathematical proof showing that prices of new drugs are set in a mathematically consistent way when the sum of intervention and downstream costs is proportional to the size of health benefits. Such proportional relationship underlies the efficiency-frontier method used by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).

METHODS

A proof by contradiction is presented that is based upon the following three premises: 1) total costs (intervention plus downstream costs) of existing non-dominated drugs and interventions are acceptable to decision-making bodies; 2) new drugs with health benefits in-between those of the most and second most effective existing interventions are not automatically excluded from reimbursement and are acceptable if prices are sufficiently low; and 3) value is measured on a cardinal scale.

RESULT

The proof shows that a proportional rule sets reimbursement prices of new drugs in a mathematically consistent way.

CONCLUSION

Based on the proof and the underlying assumptions a proportional relationship between costs and health benefits ensures mathematical consistency in VBP of drugs.

Access to medicines - a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Budgetary constraints and the rising cost of new innovative medicines are the key challenges for access to medicines. Multiple research studies explored diverse dimensions of this topic, however, a thorough and detailed review of existing literature on access to medicines in United Kingdom is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review of literature was to critically review and analyse the literature pertaining to original research on access to medicines issue in the United Kingdom. This review includes two types of studies: (a) UK centric studies (b) studies comparing UK with the other countries.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles published between Jan 2008 and October 12, 2018 was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and specific journals including BMJ, Lancet, Value in Health, Pharmacoeconomics, Pharmacoeconomics Open, Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, Health Policy.

RESULTS

The searches across all databases and journals resulted in 53 relevant articles. The data extracted from the 53 articles generated key themes. These themes included: Access to Medicines, Health technology assessment (HTA), Pricing and Health technology assessment, Risk Sharing Agreements & Stakeholders involvement/views on reimbursement Process. Subthemes were added under the key themes where applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

This review systematically evaluated the current literature and identified variability in access to medicines across countries in UK &EU and across different categories of medicines. Medicine licensing and reimbursement environment is continuously evolving and there are challenges as well as opportunities for learning and collaboration among countries which are at different stages of advancement in their systems.

The Impact of Price Reductions After Loss of Exclusivity in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Fingolimod Versus Interferon Beta-1a for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analyses tend not to take into account the availability of lower-priced generics following loss of exclusivity (LOE) of branded products. By not considering these generics, which are typically adopted quickly, total costs are likely to be overestimated and may be unreflective of real-world payer conditions in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of including future price reductions following LOE on the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus intramuscularly administered interferon beta-1a (IM IFNβ-1a) as treatments for multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

This model was adopted from a previously published Markov model and was conducted from a U.S. payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis entered the model and received either fingolimod (an oral therapy) or IM IFNβ-1a (an injectable). These treatments reflect the interventions studied in the TRANSFORMS randomized clinical trial. Clinical, cost, and utility inputs were based on a recent cost-effectiveness review of therapies for multiple sclerosis. To model LOE, price reductions and the proportion of patients switching to generic versions following LOE were based on published estimates. Price reductions varied to reflect the difference in product types (oral vs. large molecule injectable). Assumptions were also made around the proportion of patients switching to generic versions over time following LOE and the projected date of LOE. Outcomes included per-patient total direct costs (medication, administration and monitoring, and disease-related costs including relapses), quality-adjusted life-years, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year.

RESULTS

Assuming no price reductions following LOE, fingolimod was considered cost-effective versus IM IFNβ-1a ($118,434 per quality-adjusted life-year), despite having higher total direct costs over 10 years ($475,740 vs. $446,792). When including future price reductions following LOE, total direct costs were reduced with fingolimod and were lower than those accrued with IM IFNβ-1a over the model time horizon ($308,570 vs. $442,653). Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to changes in both clinical parameters and medication costs. Scenario analyses demonstrated that an earlier date of LOE was associated with lower total costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economic models may predict higher total costs when the price reductions following LOE are not considered. Here, oral fingolimod was seen to be cost-saving versus IM IFNβ-1a over the model time horizon when such price reductions were included. The cost implications of not accounting for future price changes may determine whether an intervention is considered cost-effective and as such may influence reimbursement decisions based on cost-effectiveness thresholds. Multiple product types (e.g., oral, injectable, and infused agents) have been approved for use as treatments for multiple sclerosis in the United States, and LOE is likely to have a different effect on each of these therapies.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Hua and Hersh report consulting fees from Novartis for work on this study. Hua also reports speaking, advisory board, and consulting fees from Biogen, Genzyme, Teva, EMD Serono, Genentech, TG Therapeutics, and Novartis for activities outside of this study. Hersh also reports speaking and consulting fees from Novartis, Biogen, Genzyme, Genentech, and EMD Serono for activities outside of this study, and research grants from PCORI and Biogen. At the time of this research, Morten and Kusel were paid employees of Costello Medical, which was contracted by Novartis to undertake some of this study's work. Lin, Cave, Herrera, and Ko were paid employees of Novartis at the time of this research. Cave, Herrera, and Ko also report owning stock in Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Varga provided services to Novartis at the time of this research and has nothing further to disclose. This research was presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2017; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.

Optimal Information Collection Policies in a Markov Decision Process Framework

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness and value of additional information about a health technology or program may change over time because of trends affecting patient cohorts and/or the intervention. Delaying information collection even for parameters that do not change over time may be optimal.

METHODS

We present a stochastic dynamic programming approach to simultaneously identify the optimal intervention and information collection policies. We use our framework to evaluate birth cohort hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening. We focus on how the presence of a time-varying parameter (HCV prevalence) affects the optimal information collection policy for a parameter assumed constant across birth cohorts: liver fibrosis stage distribution for screen-detected diagnosis at age 50.

RESULTS

We prove that it may be optimal to delay information collection until a time when the information more immediately affects decision making. For the example of HCV screening, given initial beliefs, the optimal policy (at 2010) was to continue screening and collect information about the distribution of liver fibrosis at screen-detected diagnosis in 12 years, increasing the expected incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) by $169.5 million compared to current guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The option to delay information collection until the information is sufficiently likely to influence decisions can increase efficiency. A dynamic programming framework enables an assessment of the marginal value of information and determines the optimal policy, including when and how much information to collect.

When Future Change Matters: Modeling Future Price and Diffusion in Health Technology Assessments of Medical Devices

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessments (HTAs) that take account of future price changes have been examined in the literature, but the important issue of price reductions that are generated by the reimbursement decision has been ignored.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the impact of future price reductions caused by increasing uptake on HTAs and decision making for medical devices.

METHODS

We demonstrate the use of a two-stage modeling approach to derive estimates of technology price as a consequence of changes in technology uptake over future periods on the basis of existing theory and supported by empirical studies. We explore the impact on cost-effectiveness and expected value of information analysis in an illustrative example on the basis of a technology in development for preterm birth screening.

RESULTS

The application of our approach to the case study technology generates smaller incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with the commonly used single cohort approach. The extent of this reduction in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio depends on the magnitude of the modeled price reduction, the speed of diffusion, and the length of the assumed technology life horizon. Results of value of information analysis are affected through changes in the expected net benefit calculation, the addition of uncertain parameters, and the diffusion-adjusted estimate of the affected patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Because modeling future changes in price and uptake has the potential to affect HTA outcomes, modeling techniques that can address such changes should be considered for medical devices that may otherwise be rejected.

Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice

Time is an important aspect of health economic evaluation, as the timing and duration of clinical events, healthcare interventions and their consequences all affect estimated costs and effects. These issues should be reflected in the design of health economic models. This article considers three important aspects of time in modelling: (1) which cohorts to simulate and how far into the future to extend the analysis; (2) the simulation of time, including the difference between discrete-time and continuous-time models, cycle lengths, and converting rates and probabilities; and (3) discounting future costs and effects to their present values. We provide a methodological overview of these issues and make recommendations to help inform both the conduct of cost-effectiveness analyses and the interpretation of their results. For choosing which cohorts to simulate and how many, we suggest analysts carefully assess potential reasons for variation in cost effectiveness between cohorts and the feasibility of subgroup-specific recommendations. For the simulation of time, we recommend using short cycles or continuous-time models to avoid biases and the need for half-cycle corrections, and provide advice on the correct conversion of transition probabilities in state transition models. Finally, for discounting, analysts should not only follow current guidance and report how discounting was conducted, especially in the case of differential discounting, but also seek to develop an understanding of its rationale. Our overall recommendations are that analysts explicitly state and justify their modelling choices regarding time and consider how alternative choices may impact on results.

Valuing Trial Designs from a Pharmaceutical Perspective Using Value-Based Pricing

Our aim was to adapt the traditional framework for expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS) to be more compatible with drug development trials from the pharmaceutical perspective. We modify the traditional framework for conducting ENBS and assume that the price of the drug is conditional on the trial outcomes. We use a value-based pricing (VBP) criterion to determine price conditional on trial data using Bayesian updating of cost-effectiveness (CE) model parameters. We assume that there is a threshold price below which the company would not market the new intervention. We present a case study in which a phase III trial sample size and trial duration are varied. For each trial design, we sampled 10,000 trial outcomes and estimated VBP using a CE model. The expected commercial net benefit is calculated as the expected profits minus the trial costs. A clinical trial with shorter follow-up, and larger sample size, generated the greatest expected commercial net benefit. Increasing the duration of follow-up had a modest impact on profit forecasts. Expected net benefit of sampling can be adapted to value clinical trials in the pharmaceutical industry to optimise the expected commercial net benefit. However, the analyses can be very time consuming for complex CE models.

Bias within economic evaluations - the impact of considering the future entry of lower-cost generics on currently estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of a new drug

Background

Most economic evaluation models compare a new patented drug (NPRx) to a generic comparator. Drug costs within these models are usually limited to the retail cost of both drugs at the time of model conception. However, the retail cost of the NPRx is expected to drop once generic versions of this molecule are introduced following the expiration of the NPRx’s patent. The objective of this study was to examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the future introduction of lower-cost generic versions of the NPRx within the model’s time horizon.

Methods

We examined the impact of this parameter with the use of two approaches: 1) a mathematical proof identifying its impact on the NPRx’s ICER; and 2) applying this parameter to a previously published economic model comparing a NPRx to a generic comparator and identifying what would have been the NPRx’s ICER had this model considered this parameter.

Results

As expected, both the mathematical proof and the application to the previously published economic model showed that considering the future introduction of lower-cost generic versions of the NPRx within the model’s time horizon lowers the NPRx’s ICER. The timing of the future entry of lower-cost generic molecules, their relative price compared to that of the patented version, and the discount rate applied to future costs all influenced the results.

Conclusion

An ICER estimated within economic evaluations comparing NPRx to generic comparators which ignore the future introduction of lower-cost generic versions of the NPRx within the model’s time horizon will tend to be overestimated. Inclusion of this parameter should be considered within future economic evaluations.

Analysis of the influence of recent reforms in China: cardiovascular and cerebrovascular medicines as a case history to provide future direction

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical expenditure has grown by 16% per annum in China, enhanced by incentives for physicians and hospitals. Hospital pharmacies dispense 80% of medicines in China, accounting for 46% of total hospital expenditure. Principal measures to moderate drug expenditure growth include pricing initiatives as limited demand-side measures.

OBJECTIVE

Assess current utilization and expenditure including traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) between 2006 and 2012.

METHODS

Uncontrolled retrospective study of medicines to treat cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in one of the largest hospitals in southwest China.

RESULTS

Utilization increased 3.3-fold for cerebrovascular medicines, greatest for TCMs, with expenditure increasing 4.85-fold. Low prices for generics were seen, similar to Europe. However, there was variable utilization of generics at 29-31% of total product volumes in recent years. There continued to be irrationality in prescribing with high use of TCMs, and the utilization of different medicines dropping significantly once they achieved low prices.

CONCLUSION

Prices still have an appreciable impact on utilization in China. Potential measures similar to those implemented among western European countries could improve prescribing rationality and conserve resources.

Economic evaluations of implemented vaccination programmes: key methodological challenges in retrospective analyses

Post-implementation evaluation should play an important role in assessing the success of public health programmes; however, the value for money achieved by vaccine programmes after introduction has received relatively little attention to date. In this article we explore the methodological challenges in these analyses and offer direction for future evaluations in the area. We identify alternative approaches to addressing these challenges, which include the estimation of disease changes attributable to vaccination efforts, the hypothetical no vaccination comparator scenario and the full benefit achieved by implemented vaccination programmes. We also outline other important considerations such as the evolution of prices over time. Further work needs to be done to explore these issues and to determine how the application of different approaches may impact on the results of evaluations in various circumstances. As retrospective analyses are likely to become more frequent and influential, it is important that both the benefits and the limitations of post-implementation evaluations are recognised and understood. We argue that it would be useful to establish a methodological framework to provide standards and guidance on how to undertake such analyses in the future.

The determinants of cost-effectiveness potential: an historical perspective on lipid-lowering therapies

BACKGROUND

The concept of cost effectiveness emerged in an attempt to link the prices of new healthcare technologies to the immediate value they provide, with payers defining the acceptable cost per unit of incremental effect over the alternatives available. It has been suggested that such measures allow developers to assess potential market profitability in an early stage of development, but may result in discouraging investment in efficient research if not used appropriately.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify the pattern of the factors determining cost effectiveness and assess the evolution of cost-effectiveness potential for drugs in development using lipid-lowering therapy as a case study.

METHODS

The study is based on observational clinical and market data covering a 20-year period (from 1990 to 2010) in the UK. Real-life clinical data including total cholesterol laboratory test results were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and are used to illustrate how the clinical effectiveness of existing standard care changed over time in patients managed in clinical practice. Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) data were extracted and the average price of the drug mix used was computed throughout the study period. Using this information, the maximum clinical benefit and cost savings to be had were estimated for each year of the analysis using a cost-effectiveness model. Subsequently, the highest price a new technology providing the maximum clinical effectiveness possible (i.e. eliminating cardiovascular risk from high cholesterol levels) could achieve under current cost-effectiveness rules was calculated and used as a measure of the potential cost effectiveness of drugs in development.

RESULTS

The results in this study show that the total cholesterol values of patients managed in clinical practice moved steadily towards recommended clinical targets. Overall, the absolute potential for incremental health-related quality of life decreased by approximately 78 %, contracting from 0.36 QALYs to 0.08 QALYs, which resulted in a saving of approximately 15 % of the costs related to cardiovascular events. The price of the drug mix used in the management of high blood cholesterol varied considerably across the years: the weighted average monthly price (in year 2007 values) started at approximately £14, peaked around £26 and progressively decreased to its minimum at £6.85 in 2010. As a consequence, the maximum price allowed by current cost-effectiveness rules for a new technology achieving the clinical target was found to decrease by a minimum of 80 % between 1990 and 2010.

CONCLUSION

The analysis supports the hypothesis that the potential for cost effectiveness of new therapies is dependent on factors specific to each disease area and furthermore to sub-populations within disease areas. Despite a clinical need still existing, the results suggest that no more technologies are likely to be developed in certain disease areas based on their low perceived cost-effectiveness potential. This occurs without considering the immediate and future value of the effectiveness lost, which may depend on the technical difficulty of materializing future advancements, and ignores the permanent character of such a decision. The analysis suggests that a single, static and arbitrary cost-effectiveness threshold may not be sufficient to capture the drug-development dynamics occurring at the disease level and successfully direct research to the disease areas that are most valued by society.

Assessing the determinants of the potential for cost-effectiveness over time: the empirical case of COPD

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the potential for cost-effectiveness of new technologies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over the period from 2001 to 2010.

METHODS

Lung function outcomes and drug prices were observed for a UK COPD population over the period from 2001 to 2010. Cost-effectiveness was assessed at regular intervals on the basis of an established cost-effectiveness model, and the maximum price a technology providing cure could achieve under the current cost-effectiveness rules was estimated.

RESULTS

The results of this study show that although the scope for clinical improvement in COPD was still considerable, during the 10 years studied, the potential for cost-effectiveness at each point in time was dependent on momentary market characteristics, such as the changing price of comparators and improvements in clinical effectiveness. As a result, the analysis demonstrates that the future cost-effectiveness of a technology in development depends on the manner pricing and clinical effectiveness evolve throughout time.

CONCLUSIONS

Because any predictions will be short-lived and dependent on a number of uncertain factors, we conclude that producing accurate forecasts on the potential for cost-effectiveness of new therapies earlier during the development process is especially difficult under the current static cost-effectiveness framework.

The adoption of low-osmolar contrast agents in the United States: historical analysis of health policy and clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

In this historical analysis of low- and high-osmolar contrast agents, we outline the reasons for the price depreciation, speculate on motivation for universal adoption by many radiologists despite suboptimal reimbursement, and cast light on important shortcomings of economic analyses in the realm of health policy.

CONCLUSION

Early economic analyses regarding low-osmolar contrast agents concluded that universal adoption was not cost-effective. Over time, the price differential between low- and high-osmolar agents narrowed, yet reimbursement patterns lagged behind the narrowing price differential.

Impact of evergreening on patients and health insurance: a meta analysis and reimbursement cost analysis of citalopram/escitalopram antidepressants

BACKGROUND

"Evergreening" refers to the numerous strategies whereby owners of pharmaceutical products use patent laws and minor drug modifications to extend their monopoly privileges on the drug. We aimed to evaluate the impact of evergreening through the case study of the antidepressant citalopram and its chiral switch form escitalopram by evaluating treatment efficacy and acceptability for patients, as well as health insurance costs for society.

METHODS

To assess efficacy and acceptability, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy and acceptability. We compared direct evidence (meta-analysis of results of head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (adjusted indirect comparison of results of placebo-controlled trials). To assess health insurance costs, we analyzed individual reimbursement data from a representative sample of the French National Health Insurance Inter-regime Information System (SNIIR-AM) from 2003 to 2010, which allowed for projecting these results to the whole SNIIR-AM population (53 million people).

RESULTS

In the meta-analysis of seven head-to-head trials (2,174 patients), efficacy was significantly better for escitalopram than citalopram (combined odds ratio (OR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.46)). However, for the adjusted indirect comparison of 10 citalopram and 12 escitalopram placebo-controlled trials, 2,984 and 3,777 patients respectively, efficacy was similar for the two drug forms (combined indirect OR 1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)). Because of the discrepancy, we could not combine direct and indirect data (test of inconsistency, P = 0.07). A similar discrepancy was found for treatment acceptability. The overall reimbursement cost burden for the citalopram, escitalopram and its generic forms was 120.6 million Euros in 2010, with 96.8 million Euros for escitalopram.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical benefit of escitalopram versus citalopram remains uncertain. In our case of evergreening, escitalopram represented a substantially high proportion of the overall reimbursement cost burden as compared with citalopram and the generic forms.

Antihypertensive drugs: a perspective on pharmaceutical price erosion and its impact on cost-effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

When comparators' prices decrease due to market competition and loss of exclusivity, the incremental clinical effectiveness required for a new technology to be cost-effective is expected to increase; and/or the minimum price at which it will be funded will tend to decrease. This may be, however, either unattainable physiologically or financially unviable for drug development. The objective of this study is to provide an empirical basis for this discussion by estimating the potential for price decreases to impact on the cost-effectiveness of new therapies in hypertension.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness at launch was estimated for all antihypertensive drugs launched between 1998 and 2008 in the United Kingdom using hypothetical degrees of incremental clinical effectiveness within the methodologic framework applied by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed and compared with funding thresholds. In addition, the levels of incremental clinical effectiveness required to achieve specific cost-effectiveness thresholds at given prices were estimated.

RESULTS

Significant price decreases were observed for existing drugs. This was shown to markedly affect cost-effectiveness of technologies entering the market. The required incremental clinical effectiveness was in many cases greater than physiologically possible so, as a consequence, a number of products might not be available today if current methods of economic appraisal had been applied.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the definition of cost-effectiveness thresholds is fundamental in promoting efficient innovation. Our findings demonstrate that comparator price attrition has the potential to put pressure in the pharmaceutical research model and presents a challenge to new therapies being accepted for funding.

Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin in comparison with generic atorvastatin and simvastatin in a Swedish population at high risk of cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with generic simvastatin and generic atorvastatin in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in a Swedish population with Framingham risk ≥20%.

METHODS

A PROBABILISTIC MONTE CARLO SIMULATION MODEL BASED ON DATA FROM JUPITER (THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF STATINS IN PREVENTION: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) was used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20 mg daily versus simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg for the prevention of cardiovascular death and morbidity. The three- stage model included cardiovascular event prevention simulating the 4 years of JUPITER, initial prevention beyond the trial, and subsequent cardiovascular event prevention. A Swedish health care payer perspective (direct costs only) was modeled for a lifetime horizon, with 2008/2009 as the costing period. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with rosuvastatin 20 mg over simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg ranged from SEK88,113 (rosuvastatin 20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg; Framingham risk ≥30%; net avoidance of 34 events/1000 patients) to SEK497,542 (versus atorvastatin 40 mg: Framingham risk ≥20%; net avoidance of 11 events/1000 patients) over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK500,000/QALY, rosuvastatin 20 mg would be cost-effective for approximately 75%-85% of simulations relative to atorvastatin or simvastatin 40 mg. Sensitivity analyses indicated the findings to be robust.

CONCLUSION

Rosuvastatin 20 mg is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared with generic simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg in patients at high cardiovascular risk in Sweden.

Health technology assessment: an evidence-based medicine perspective

A challenge of health technology assessment is integrating the information from different disciplines. This talk focuses on the evidence-based medicine perspective and challenges 3 assumptions of health technology assessment: assumptions about effectiveness, assumptions about coverage by health technology assessment, and assumptions about costs being immutable. Challenging these assumptions has several implications. First is the need for better evidence on effects: both low-volume, high-cost technologies and low-cost, high-volume technologies that are ineffective drains on health care systems' resources. Second, cheap but effective technologies should be better promoted, as they can displace high-cost technologies. Finally, for effective but expensive technologies, we should work to lower the price and/or costs.

Cinacalcet: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in secondary hyperparathyroidism in end-stage renal disease

This article provides an overview of the clinical profile of the calcimimetic agent cinacalcet (Mimpara®, Sensipar®) in the treatment of patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) undergoing dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), followed by a comprehensive review of pharmacoeconomic analyses with cinacalcet in this patient population. Most patients with ESRD undergoing dialysis develop SHPT, which is associated with disturbances in bone mineral metabolism and the development of fractures, cardiovascular disease and other clinical events. Standard treatment of SHPT includes phosphate binders and active vitamin D derivatives. However, standard treatment alone seldom achieves recommended target plasma or serum levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH), calcium and phosphorous. The addition of cinacalcet to standard therapy in patients with SHPT undergoing dialysis for ESRD improves the likelihood of achieving target biochemical levels compared with standard therapy alone. On the basis of association studies, improvements in these intermediate endpoints are likely to reduce the risk of clinical events, such as fractures and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, part of the acquisition cost of cinacalcet is likely to be offset by reductions in other healthcare resource use, such as reductions in costs associated with a lower likelihood of clinical events, as well as potential reductions in dosages of standard treatment. A number of pharmacoeconomic analyses across various country settings indicate that cinacalcet plus standard therapy is cost effective relative to standard therapy alone if dialysis costs are excluded, or that early initiation of cinacalcet is cost effective compared with delaying cinacalcet treatment until PTH levels become very uncontrolled. However, across analyses with cinacalcet, results were variable and not always favourable. This wide range of results stems from differences in selection of data sources used to populate the models, regional differences in healthcare resource use and costs, as well as other factors. Future cost-effectiveness analyses with cinacalcet should incorporate data on hard clinical outcomes from the EVOLVE study once this information becomes available.

Reimbursement and value-based pricing: stratified cost-effectiveness analysis may not be the last word

During recent discussions, it has been argued that stratified cost-effectiveness analysis has a key role in reimbursement decision-making and value-based pricing (VBP). It has previously been shown that when manufacturers are price-takers, reimbursement decisions made in reference to stratified cost-effectiveness analysis lead to a more efficient allocation of resources than decisions based on whole-population cost-effectiveness analysis. However, we demonstrate that when manufacturers are price setters, reimbursement or VBP based on stratified cost-effectiveness analysis may not be optimal. Using two examples - one considering the choice of thrombolytic treatment for specific patient subgroups and the other considering the extension of coverage for a cancer treatment to include an additional indication - we show that combinations of extended coverage and reduced price can be identified that are advantageous to both payers and manufacturers. The benefits of a given extension in coverage and reduction in price depend both upon the average treatment benefit in the additional population and its size relative to the original population. Negotiation regarding trade-offs between price and coverage may lead to improved outcomes both for health-care systems and manufacturers compared with processes where coverage is determined conditional simply on stratified cost-effectiveness at a given price.

Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis

Economic evaluations of health technologies typically assume constant real drug prices and model only the cohort of patients currently eligible for treatment. It has recently been suggested that, in the UK, we should assume that real drug prices decrease at 4% per annum and, in New Zealand, that real drug prices decrease at 2% per annum and at patent expiry the drug price falls. It has also recently been suggested that we should model multiple future incident cohorts. In this article, the cost effectiveness of drugs is modelled based on these ideas. Algebraic expressions are developed to capture all costs and benefits over the entire life cycle of a new drug. The lifetime of a new drug in the UK, a key model parameter, is estimated as 33 years, based on the historical lifetime of drugs in England over the last 27 years. Under the proposed methodology, cost effectiveness is calculated for seven new drugs recently appraised in the UK. Cost effectiveness as assessed in the future is also estimated. Whilst the article is framed in mathematics, the findings and recommendations are also explained in non-mathematical language. The 'life-cycle correction factor' is introduced, which is used to convert estimates of cost effectiveness as traditionally calculated into estimates under the proposed methodology. Under the proposed methodology, all seven drugs appear far more cost effective in the UK than published. For example, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreases by 46%, from £61, 900 to £33, 500 per QALY, for cinacalcet versus best supportive care for end-stage renal disease, and by 45%, from £31,100 to £17,000 per QALY, for imatinib versus interferon-α for chronic myeloid leukaemia. Assuming real drug prices decrease over time, the chance that a drug is publicly funded increases over time, and is greater when modelling multiple cohorts than with a single cohort. Using the methodology (compared with traditional methodology) all drugs in the UK and New Zealand are predicted to be more cost effective. It is suggested that the willingness-to-pay threshold should be reduced in the UK and New Zealand. The ranking of cost effectiveness will change with drugs assessed as relatively more cost effective and medical devices and surgical procedures relatively less cost effective than previously thought. The methodology is very simple to implement. It is suggested that the model should be parameterized for other countries.

Cost-effectiveness of oral alitretinoin in patients with severe chronic hand eczema--a long-term analysis from a Swiss perspective

BACKGROUND

The impact on patients suffering from chronic hand eczema (CHE) is enormous, as no licensed systemic treatment option with proven efficacy for CHE is available. Alitretinoin is a novel agent which showed high clinical efficacy in patients with severe, refractory CHE. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin for CHE patient treatment from a Swiss third party payer perspective. A further objective of this study was to determine the burden of disease in Switzerland.

METHODS

A long-term Markov cohort simulation model was used to estimate direct medical costs (euro) and clinical effectiveness (quality adjusted life years, QALYs) of treating severe CHE patients with alitretinoin. Comparison was against the standard treatment of supportive care (optimised emollient therapy). Information on response rates were derived from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Costs were considered from the perspective of the Swiss health system. Swiss epidemiological data was derived from official Swiss Statistic institutions.

RESULTS

Annual costs of alitretinoin treatment accounted for 2'212 euro. After a time horizon of 22.4 years, average remaining long-term costs accounted for 42'208 euro or 38'795 euro in the alitretinoin and the standard treatment arm, respectively. Compared with the standard therapy, the addition of alitretinoin yielded an average gain of 0.230 QALYs at the end of the simulation. Accordingly, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio resulted in 14'816 euro/QALY gained. These results were robust to changes in key model assumptions.

CONCLUSION

The therapy for CHE patients is currently insufficient. In our long-term model we identified the treatment with alitretinoin as a cost-effective alternative for the therapy of CHE patients in Switzerland.

Whose Costs and Benefits? Why Economic Evaluations Should Simulate Both Prevalent and All Future Incident Patient Cohorts

Background. Most health technology economic evaluations simulate only the prevalent cohort or the next incident cohort of patients. They therefore do not capture all future patient-related benefits and costs. Objective. We show how to estimate and aggregate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for both currently eligible (prevalent) and future (incident) patient cohorts within the same model-based analysis. We show why, and in what circumstances, the prevalent and incident cohort ICERs are likely to differ. Methods. Algebraic expressions were developed to capture all components of the ICER in hypothetical cohorts of all prevalent patients and future incident patients. Numerical examples are used to illustrate the approach. Results. The ICER for the first (i.e., next) incident cohort is equivalent to the ICER for all future incident cohorts only when the discount rates for costs and benefits are the same; otherwise, when the discount rate for benefits is lower than for costs, the ICER for all future incident cohorts is lower than the ICER for the first incident cohort. Separate simulation of prevalent and incident patients treated for a hypothetical progressive chronic disease shows widely different ICERs according to which patient cohorts were included when the discount rates were equal. Conclusions. In many circumstances, both the prevalent cohort and all future incident cohorts should be modeled. The need for this approach will depend on the likely difference in the ICERs for prevalent and incident patients, the relative size of the 2 types of cohort, and whether costs and benefits are discounted at equal rates.

A brief history of economic evaluation for human papillomavirus vaccination policy

Background: This commentary discusses key issues for health economic evaluation and modelling, applied to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine programs. Methods: We outline some of the specific features of HPV disease and vaccination, and associated policy questions in light of a literature search for economic evaluations on HPV vaccination. Results: We observe that some policy questions could not be reliably addressed by many of the 43 published economic evaluations we found. Despite this, policy making on universal HPV vaccination followed shortly after vaccine licensure in many developed countries, so the role economic evaluation played in informing these decisions (pre-dating 2008) seems to have been fairly limited. For more recent decisions, however, economic evaluation is likely to have been used more widely and more intensively. Conclusions: We expect future cost-effectiveness analyses to be more instrumental in policy making regarding vaccines covering more HPV types, therapeutic HPV vaccines, and novel diagnostic tests for biomarkers of HPV infection and disease integrated with cervical screening programs.

Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost effectiveness analyses: issues and recommendations: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report--Part I

OBJECTIVES

The assignment of prices or costs to pharmaceuticals can be crucial to results and conclusions that are derived from pharmacoeconomic cost effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Although numerous pharmacoeconomic practice guidelines are available in the literature and have been promulgated in many countries, these guidelines are either vague or silent about how drug costs should be established or measured. This is particularly problematic in pharmacoeconomic studies performed from the "societal" perspective, because typically the measured cost of a brand name pharmaceutical is not a true economic cost but also includes transfer payments from some members of society (patients and third party payers) to other members of society (pharmaceutical manufacturer stockholders) in large part as a reward for biomedical innovation. Moreover, there are numerous and complex institutional factors that influence how drug costs should be measured from other CEA perspectives, both internationally and within the domestic US context. The objective of this report is to provide guidance and recommendations on how drug costs should be measured for CEAs performed from a number of key analytic perspectives.

METHODS

ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis (Drug Cost Task Force [DCTF]) was appointed with the advice and consent of the ISPOR Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of CEA models, worked in academia, industry, and as advisors to governments, and came from several countries. Because how drug costs should be measured for CEAs depend on the perspectives, five Task Force subgroups were created to develop drug cost standards from the societal, managed care, US government, industry, and international perspective. The ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis (DCTF) subgroups met to develop core assumptions and an outline before preparing six draft reports. They solicited comments on the outline and drafts from a core group of 174 external reviewers and more broadly from the membership of ISPOR at two ISPOR meetings and via the ISPOR web site.

RESULTS

Drug cost measurements should be fully transparent and reflect the net payment most relevant to the user's perspective. The Task Force recommends that for CEAs of brand name drugs performed from a societal perspective, either 1) CEA analysts use a cost that more accurately reflects true societal drug costs (e.g., 20-60% of average sales price), or when that is too unrealistic to be meaningful for decision-makers, 2) refer to their analyses as from a "limited societal perspective." CEAs performed from a payer perspective should use drug prices actually paid by the relevant payer net of all rebates, copays, or other adjustments. When such price adjustments are confidential, the analyst should apply a typical or average discount that preserves this confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug transaction prices not only ration current use of medication but also ration future biomedical research and development. CEA researchers should tailor the appropriate measure of drug costs to the analytic perspective, maintain clarity and transparency on drug cost measurement, and report the sensitivity of CEA results to reasonable drug cost measurement alternatives.

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality.

METHODS

A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20 mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates.

RESULTS

For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon.

LIMITATIONS

The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20 mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk≥10%) of CVD.

Estimating drug costs in economic evaluations in Ireland and the UK: an analysis of practice and research recommendations

Cost estimates for the drug of interest, its comparator and concomitant drugs are an important component of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. However, whilst in general considerable efforts are made by analysts to ensure valid and accurate parameter inputs, the methods for estimating drug costs are often lacking. We reviewed recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations undertaken in Ireland and the UK and documented the sources of data for drug costs and the methods of cost estimation. Methods were often inadequately described and, where adequate information was available, there was considerable variation and limitations in the methods used, thereby reducing the comparability of studies. Data from a sample of studies from other Northern European countries suggested that the findings from Ireland and the UK were not atypical. In order to improve current practice we suggest a methodological checklist for use in future studies.