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

Real-world service costs for neovascular-AMD clinics in the United Kingdom: structured literature review and scenario analysis

OBJECTIVE

Current cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) emphasize drug costs as the differentiator between NICE recommended anti-VEGF treatments but may neglect real-world non-drug costs of running nAMD services in the UK. To address this, this study identified real-world non-drug service cost items relevant to UK NHS nAMD clinics, including costs arising from operational strain (demand exceeding capacity).

METHODS

Cost items were identified by a structured literature review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, and an expert panel of 10 UK-based ophthalmologists with relevance to real-world practice. These items underwent meta-synthesis and were then determined in a consensus exercise.

RESULTS

Of 237 cost items identified, 217 (91.6%) met the consensus threshold of >0.51 and were included in the nAMD Service Non-Drug Cost Instrument (nAS). Sensitivity of cost items taken from UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) using the nAS as the reference standard was low (HTAmin: 1.84%, 95% CI 0.50-4.65%; HTAmax: 70.51%, 95% CI 63.96-76.49%). False negative rates showed variable likelihood of misclassifying a service by cost burden depending on prevalence. Scenario analysis using cost magnitudes estimated annual per-patient clinic cost at £845 (within capacity) to £13,960 (under strain) compared to an HTAmin estimate of £210. Accounting for cost of strain under an assumed 50% increase in health resource utilization influenced cost-effectiveness in a hypothetical genericisation scenario.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggested that HTA underestimates UK NHS nAMD clinic cost burden with cost of strain contributing substantial additional unmeasured expense with impact on CEA. Given potential undertreatment due to strain, durability is suggested as one of the relevant factors in CEA of nAMD anti-VEGF treatments due to robustness under limited capacity conditions affecting UK ophthalmology services.

Role of data from cost and other economic analyses in healthcare decision-making for HIV, TB and sexual/reproductive health programmes in South Africa

An increasing focus on the use of the results of cost analyses and other economic evaluations in health programme decision-making by governments, donors and technical support partners working in low- and middle-income countries is accompanied by recognition that this use is impeded by several factors, including the lack of skills, data and coordination between spheres of the government. We describe our experience generating economic evaluation data for human immunodeficiency virus, tuberculosis and sexual/reproductive health programmes in South Africa alongside the results of a series of in-depth interviews (IDIs) among decision-makers within the South African government and implementing organizations (data users) and producers of economic evaluations (data producers). We summarize results across (1) the process of implementing a new intervention; (2) barriers to the use of cost data and suggested solutions and (3) the transferability of experiences to the planned South African implementation of universal health coverage (UHC). Based on our experience and the IDIs, we suggest concrete steps towards the improvement of economic data use in the planning and the establishment of structures mandated under the transition to UHC. Our key recommendations include the following: (1) compile a publicly available and regularly updated in-country cost repository; (2) increase the availability of programmatic outcomes data at the aggregate level; (3) agree upon and implement a set of primary decision criteria for the adoption and funding of interventions; (4) combine the efforts of health economics institutions into a stringent system for health technology assessments and (5) improve the link between national and provincial planning and budgeting.

Folate Augmentation of Treatment--Evaluation for Depression (FolATED): randomised trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Folate deficiency is associated with depression. Despite the biological plausibility of a causal link, the evidence that adding folate enhances antidepressant treatment is weak.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of folic acid as adjunct to antidepressant medication (ADM). (2) Explore whether baseline folate and homocysteine predict response to treatment. (3) Investigate whether response to treatment depends on genetic polymorphisms related to folate metabolism.

DESIGN

FolATED (Folate Augmentation of Treatment - Evaluation for Depression) was a double-blind and placebo-controlled, but otherwise pragmatic, randomised trial including cost-utility analysis. To yield 80% power of detecting standardised difference on the Beck Depression Inventory version 2 (BDI-II) of 0.3 between groups (a 'small' effect), FolATED trialists sought to analyse 358 participants. To allow for an estimated loss of 21% of participants over three time points, we planned to randomise 453.

SETTINGS

Clinical - Three centres in Wales - North East Wales, North West Wales and Swansea. Trial management - North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health in Bangor University. Biochemical analysis - University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff. Genetic analysis - University of Liverpool.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred and seventy-five adult patients presenting to primary or secondary care with confirmed moderate to severe depression for which they were taking or about to start ADM, and able to consent and complete assessments, but not (1) folate deficient, vitamin B12 deficient, or taking folic acid or anticonvulsants; (2) misusing drugs or alcohol, or suffering from psychosis, bipolar disorder, malignancy or other unstable or terminal illness; (3) (planning to become) pregnant; or (4) participating in other clinical research.

INTERVENTIONS

Once a day for 12 weeks experimental participants added 5 mg of folic acid to their ADM, and control participants added an indistinguishable placebo. All participants followed pragmatic management plans initiated by a trial psychiatrist and maintained by their general medical practitioners.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Assessed at baseline, and 4, 12 and 25 weeks thereafter, and analysed by 'area under curve' (main); by analysis of covariance at each time point (secondary); and by multi-level repeated measures (sensitivity analysis): Mental health - BDI-II (primary), Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), UKU side effects scale, and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) suicidality subscale; General health - UK 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), European Quality of Life scale - 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D); Biochemistry - serum folate, B12, homocysteine; Adherence - Morisky Questionnaire; Economics - resource use.

RESULTS

Folic acid did not significantly improve any of these measures. For example it gained a mean of just 2.9 quality-adjusted life-days [95% confidence interval (CI) from -12.7 to 7.0 days] and saved a mean of just £48 (95% CI from -£292 to £389). In contrast it significantly reduced mental health scores on the SF-12 by 3.0% (95% CI from -5.2% to -0.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The FolATED trial generated no evidence that folic acid was clinically effective or cost-effective in augmenting ADM. This negative finding is consistent with improving understanding of the one-carbon folate pathway suggesting that methylfolate is a better candidate for augmenting ADM. Hence the findings of FolATED undermine treatment guidelines that advocate folic acid for treating depression, and suggest future trials of methylfolate to augment ADM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37558856.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 48. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Methodological developments in randomized controlled trial-based economic evaluations

Economic evaluation is a key contributor to decision making in health care, and it is important that it is carried out as effectively and reliably as possible. Studies carried out alongside randomised controlled trials are required to contribute real-world evidence to the decision-making process. However, the requirement that resource use be measured as well as effectiveness data within a trial results in additional complexity for trialists, and there are a number of methodological areas in which improvement is needed. This article reviews the literature in methodological work carried out to inform economic evaluation studies conducted alongside randomised controlled trials. Recent advances in areas including overall trial design, measuring resource use, measuring outcomes and reporting economic evaluations are discussed.

Systematic review of drug administration costs and implications for biopharmaceutical manufacturing

BACKGROUND

The acquisition costs of biologic drugs are often considered to be relatively high compared with those of nonbiologics. However, the total costs of delivering these drugs also depend on the cost of administration. Ignoring drug administration costs may distort resource allocation decisions because these affect cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this systematic review were to develop a framework of drug administration costs that considers both the costs of physical administration and the associated proximal costs; and, as a case example, to use this framework to evaluate administration costs for biologics within the UK National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

We reviewed literature that reported estimates of administration costs for biologics within the UK NHS to identify how these costs were quantified and to examine how differences in dosage forms and regimens influenced administration costs. The literature reviewed were identified by searching the Centre for Review and Dissemination Databases (DARE, NHS EED and HTA); EMBASE (The Excerpta Medica Database); MEDLINE (using the OVID interface); Econlit (EBSCO); Tufts Medical Center Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry; and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

We identified 4,344 potentially relevant studies, of which 43 studies were selected for this systematic review. We extracted estimates of the administration costs of biologics from these studies. We found evidence of variation in the way that administration costs were measured, and that this affected the magnitude of costs reported, which could then influence cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggested that manufacturers of biologic medicines should pay attention to formulation issues and their impact on administration costs, because these affect the total costs of healthcare delivery and cost effectiveness.

Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of managing patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) using telemonitoring versus usual care from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS).

DESIGN

Within trial post hoc economic evaluation of data from a pragmatic randomised controlled trial using an intention-to-treat approach.

SETTING

20 socioeconomically diverse general practices in Lothian, Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

401 primary care patients aged 29-95 with uncontrolled daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) (≥135/85, but <210/135 mm Hg).

INTERVENTION

Participants were centrally randomised to 6 months of a telemonitoring service comprising of self-monitoring of BP transmitted to a secure website for review by the attending nurse/doctor and patient, with optional automated patient decision-support by text/email (n=200) or usual care (n-201). Randomisation was undertaken with minimisation for age, sex, family practice, use of three or more hypertension drugs and self-monitoring history.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean difference in total NHS costs between trial arms and blinded assessment of mean cost per 1 mm Hg systolic BP point reduced.

RESULTS

Home telemonitoring of BP costs significantly more than usual care (mean difference per patient £115.32 (95% CI £83.49 to £146.63; p<0.001)). Increased costs were due to telemonitoring service costs, patient training and additional general practitioner and nurse consultations. The mean cost of systolic BP reduction was £25.56/mm Hg (95% CI £16.06 to £46.89) per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the 6-month trial period, supported telemonitoring was more effective at reducing BP than usual care but also more expensive. If clinical gains are maintained, these additional costs would be very likely to be compensated for by reductions in the cost of future cardiovascular events. Longer-term modelling of costs and outcomes is required to fully examine the cost-effectiveness implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72614272.

Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: an international perspective: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report--Part VI

OBJECTIVE

The pharmacoeconomic guidelines available in the literature or promulgated in many countries are either vague or silent about how drug costs should be established or measured so an international comparison of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) results can be made. The objective of this report is to provide guidance and recommendations on how drug costs should be measured for CEAs done from an internationally comparative perspective.

METHODS

Members of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Good Research Practices-Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis (Drug Cost Task Force [DCTF]) subgroup from several countries were experienced developers or users of CEA models, and worked in academia, industry, and as advisors to governments. They solicited comments on drafts from a core group of 174 external reviewers and more broadly, from the members of the ISPOR at the ISPOR 12th Annual International meeting and via the ISPOR Web site.

RESULTS

Drug units should be standardized in terms of volume of active ingredient, regardless of packaging and dosing strength variations across countries. Drug costs should be measured in local currency per unit of active ingredient and should be converted to other currencies using sensitivity analyses of purchasing power parities (PPP) and exchange rates, whichever is more appropriate. When using drug prices from different years, the consumer price index for the local currency should be applied before the PPP and/or exchange rate conversion.

CONCLUSION

CEA researchers conducting international pharmacoeconomic analysis should tailor the appropriate measure of drug costs to the international perspective, to maintain clarity and transparency on drug cost measurement in the context of international drug comparison and report the sensitivity of CEA results to reasonable cost conversions.