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

A Review of US Drug Costs Relevant to Medicare, Medicaid, and Commercial Insurers Post-Affordable Care Act Enactment, 2010-2016

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, US stakeholders are increasingly being held accountable for the value of healthcare services and drugs administered to patients. Pharmacoeconomic analyses offer one method of demonstrating a product's value, yet there is a lack of resources specific to US drug costs relevant to each stakeholder. The aim of this study was to review current US drug costs (post-ACA). A literature review aimed at finding evidence on outpatient prescription drug costs was performed using the following sources: PubMed, governmental agencies, news websites, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) website, and Google Scholar. Articles were limited to those published in the years "2010-2016" and the "English" language, and those that described drug acquisition costs, reimbursement costs, and rebates or discounting for Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payors. The Drug Cost Focus Group (DCFG) was convened to supplement the literature review; the DCFG provided their expertise on US drug costs and emerging issues affecting drug costs. ACA legislation increased drug rebates for manufacturers participating in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Acquisition costs commonly referred to in the literature include the wholesale acquisition cost and average manufacture price. Drugs reimbursed by Medicaid are currently based on the actual acquisition cost and ACA-Federal Upper Limit. Evidence suggests that reimbursement methods in the public market are varied. Current gaps in the literature regarding commercial insurers' drug costs (post-ACA) present barriers to the application of relevant drug costs to pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapeutic options for chronic hepatitis C genotype 3 infected patients

BACKGROUND

This study provides a cost-effectiveness analysis of therapeutic strategies for chronic hepatitis C genotype 3 infected patients in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov model was designed to simulate the progression in a cohort of patients aged 50 years over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

Sofosbuvir (SOF) plus peginterferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks was a cost-effective option when compared to standard of care (SoC) in the treatment of both 'moderate fibrosis' and 'cirrhotic' patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were €35,276/QALY and €18,374/QALY respectively. ICERs for SOF plus daclatasvir (DCV) regimens versus SoC were over the threshold limit considered, at €56,178/QALY and €77,378/QALY for 'moderate fibrosis' and 'cirrhotic' patients respectively.

CONCLUSION

Addition of SOF to IFN-based regimens for genotype 3 was cost-effective for both 'moderate fibrosis' and 'cirrhotic' patients. IFN-free options including SOF and DCV association required price reductions lower than the list prices to be considered cost-effective.

REVIEWING TRANSFERABILITY IN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ORIGINATING FROM EASTERN EUROPE

Objectives: The aim of this study is to analyze the quality and transferability issues reported in published peer-reviewed English-language economic evaluations based in healthcare settings of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) and former Soviet countries.

Methods: A systematic search of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions was performed for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. The included studies were assessed according to their characteristics, quality (using Drummond's checklist), use of local data, and the transferability of inputs and results, if addressed.

Results: Most of the thirty-four economic evaluations identified were conducted from a healthcare or payer perspective (74 percent), with 47 percent of studies focusing on infectious diseases. The least frequently and transparently addressed parameters were the items’ stated perspectives, relevant costs included, accurately measured costs in appropriate units, outcomes and costs credibly valued, and uncertainties addressed. Local data were often used to assess unit costs, baseline risk, and resource usage, while jurisdiction-specific utilities were included in only one study. Only 32 percent of relevant studies discussed the limitations of using foreign data, and 36 percent of studies discussed the transferability of their own study results to other jurisdictions.

Conclusions: Transferability of the results is not sufficiently discussed in published economic evaluations. To simplify the transferability of studies to other jurisdictions, the following should be comprehensively addressed: uncertainty, impact of influential parameters, and data transferability. The transparency of reporting should be improved.

Methods to construct a step-by-step beginner's guide to decision analytic cost-effectiveness modeling

BACKGROUND

Although guidance on good research practice in health economic modeling is widely available, there is still a need for a simpler instructive resource which could guide a beginner modeler alongside modeling for the first time.

AIM

To develop a beginner's guide to be used as a handheld guide contemporaneous to the model development process.

METHODS

A systematic review of best practice guidelines was used to construct a framework of steps undertaken during the model development process. Focused methods review supplemented this framework. Consensus was obtained among a group of model developers to review and finalize the content of the preliminary beginner's guide. The final beginner's guide was used to develop cost-effectiveness models.

RESULTS

Thirty-two best practice guidelines were data extracted, synthesized, and critically evaluated to identify steps for model development, which formed a framework for the beginner's guide. Within five phases of model development, eight broad submethods were identified and 19 methodological reviews were conducted to develop the content of the draft beginner's guide. Two rounds of consensus agreement were undertaken to reach agreement on the final beginner's guide. To assess fitness for purpose (ease of use and completeness), models were developed independently and by the researcher using the beginner's guide.

CONCLUSION

A combination of systematic review, methods reviews, consensus agreement, and validation was used to construct a step-by-step beginner's guide for developing decision analytical cost-effectiveness models. The final beginner's guide is a step-by-step resource to accompany the model development process from understanding the problem to be modeled, model conceptualization, model implementation, and model checking through to reporting of the model results.

Integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care: Study protocol for a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the well-established risks of persistent smoking, 10-30% of cancer patients continue to smoke after diagnosis. Evidence-based tobacco treatment has yet to be integrated into routine oncology care. This paper describes the protocol, manualized treatment, evaluation plan, and overall study design of comparing the effectiveness and cost of two treatments across two major cancer centers.

METHODS/DESIGN

A two-arm, two-site randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial is testing the hypothesis that an Intensive Treatment (IT) intervention is more effective than a Standard Treatment (ST) intervention in helping recently diagnosed cancer patients quit smoking. Both interventions include 4 weekly counseling sessions and FDA-approved smoking cessation medication advice. The IT includes an additional 4 biweekly and 3 monthly booster sessions as well as dispensal of the recommended FDA-approved smoking cessation medication at no cost. The trial is enrolling patients with suspected or newly diagnosed cancer who have smoked a cigarette in the past 30days. Participants are randomly assigned to receive the ST or IT condition. Tobacco cessation outcomes are assessed at 3 and 6months. The primary study outcome is 7-day point prevalence biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence. Secondary study outcomes include the incremental cost-effectiveness of the IT vs. ST.

DISCUSSION

This trial will answer key questions about delivering tobacco treatment interventions to newly diagnosed cancer patients. If found to be efficacious and cost-effective, this treatment will serve as a model to be integrated into oncology care settings nation-wide, as we strive to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life for cancer patients.

Economic evaluation of vaccines in Canada: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations should form part of the basis for public health decision making on new vaccine programs. While Canada's national immunization advisory committee does not systematically include economic evaluations in immunization decision making, there is increasing interest in adopting them. We therefore sought to examine the extent and quality of economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada to determine and summarize: comprehensiveness across jurisdictions, studied vaccines, funding sources, study designs, research quality, and changes over time.

METHODS

Searches in multiple databases were conducted using the terms "vaccine," "economics" and "Canada." Descriptive data from eligible manuscripts was abstracted and three authors independently evaluated manuscript quality using a 7-point Likert-type scale scoring tool based on criteria from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

RESULTS

42/175 articles met the search criteria. Of these, Canada-wide studies were most common (25/42), while provincial studies largely focused on the three populous provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The most common funding source was industry (17/42), followed by government (7/42). 38 studies used mathematical models estimating expected economic benefit while 4 studies examined post-hoc data on established programs. Studies covered 10 diseases, with 28/42 addressing pediatric vaccines. Many studies considered cost-utility (22/42) and the majority of these studies reported favorable economic results (16/22). The mean quality score was 5.9/7 and was consistent over publication date, funding sources, and disease areas.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed diverse approaches to evaluate vaccine economics in Canada. Given the increased complexity of economic studies evaluating vaccines and the impact of results on public health practice, Canada needs improved, transparent and consistent processes to review and assess the findings of the economic evaluations of vaccines.

Adjusting for Drug Wastage in Economic Evaluations of New Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies: A Systematic Review

Purpose:

As costs of cancer care rise, there has been a shift to focus on value. Drug wastage affects costs to patients and health care systems without adding value. Historically, cost-effectiveness analyses have used models that assume no drug wastage; however, this may not reflect real-world practices. We sought to identify the frequency of drug wastage modeling in economic evaluations of modern parenteral therapies for hematologic malignancies.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of new US Food and Drug Administration–approved parenteral chemotherapies with indications for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of studies that modeled drug wastage in base-case analyses. If wastage was considered in primary analyses, we reported the impact of wastage on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and drug acquisition costs.

Results:

Wastage was considered in base-case analyses in less than one third of all publications reviewed (12 of 38; 32%). Of these, two studies went on to complete sensitivity analyses and reported significant changes in the calculated ICER as a result. In one study, the ICER increased by 32%, and in the second, accounting for wastage changed a positive ICER to a dominant result.

Conclusion:

Potential costs associated with drug wastage are considered in only one third of modern cost-effectiveness models. The impact of wastage on calculated ICERs and drug acquisition costs is potentially substantial. The modeling of wastage in base-case and sensitivity analyses is recommended for future economic evaluations of new intravenous therapies for hematologic malignancies.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Prolonged-Release Tacrolimus Relative to Immediate-Release Tacrolimus in Liver Transplant Patients Based on Data from Routine Clinical Practice

Background

As of 2014, there were approximately 8300 patients with a functioning liver transplant in the UK Transplant Registry, with 880 liver transplants performed in 2013–2014 alone. Tacrolimus, typically used in combination with steroids and mycophenolate mofetil, currently represents the cornerstone of post-transplant immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients.

Objectives

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus (Advagraf^®, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo, Japan) versus branded immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus (Prograf^®, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo, Japan) in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

Methods

A model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate costs associated with immunosuppressive medications and retransplantation. Three-year patient and graft survival data were taken from a recent retrospective registry analysis and dose data were taken from prescribing information. Costs in 2014 pounds sterling were taken from the British National Formulary and the National Health Service National Tariff.

Results

Over a 3-year time horizon, the numbers needed to treat with PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus were 14 to avoid one graft loss and 18 to avoid one death. The model was sensitive to dosing assumptions, with incremental cost estimates varying between a saving of £1642 (standard deviation £885) per patient, assuming the same per-kilogram dosing of PR tacrolimus (Advagraf^®) and IR tacrolimus (Prograf^®) and an increase of £1350 (£964) using RCT dose data.

Conclusion

Data from a recent analysis of routine clinical practice data in liver transplant recipients on PR tacrolimus and IR tacrolimus showed significant differences in long-term graft survival in favor of PR tacrolimus. Modeling these data in the UK showed that, over a 3-year time horizon, one graft would be saved for every 14 patients treated with PR tacrolimus with minimal impact on costs when compared with branded IR tacrolimus (Prograf^®).

Cost-effectiveness of rituximab in addition to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia

The cost-effectiveness of rituximab in combination with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (R-FC) for the first line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was evaluated. Based on long-term clinical data (follow-up of 5.9 years) from the CLL8-trial, a Markov-model with three health states (Free from disease progression, Progressive disease, Death) was used to evaluate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost per life years gained (LYG) of R-FC from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). The addition of rituximab to FC chemotherapy results in a gain of 1.1 quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of R-FC compared with FC was €17,979 per QALY (€15,773 per LYG). Results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. From the German SHI perspective, rituximab in combination with FC chemotherapy represents good value for first-line treatment of patients with CLL and compares favorably with chemotherapy alone.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Prolonged-Release Tacrolimus Relative to Immediate-Release Tacrolimus in Liver Transplant Patients Based on Data from Routine Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

As of 2014, there were approximately 8300 patients with a functioning liver transplant in the UK Transplant Registry, with 880 liver transplants performed in 2013-2014 alone. Tacrolimus, typically used in combination with steroids and mycophenolate mofetil, currently represents the cornerstone of post-transplant immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus (Advagraf^®, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo, Japan) versus branded immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus (Prograf^®, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo, Japan) in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

METHODS

A model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate costs associated with immunosuppressive medications and retransplantation. Three-year patient and graft survival data were taken from a recent retrospective registry analysis and dose data were taken from prescribing information. Costs in 2014 pounds sterling were taken from the British National Formulary and the National Health Service National Tariff.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year time horizon, the numbers needed to treat with PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus were 14 to avoid one graft loss and 18 to avoid one death. The model was sensitive to dosing assumptions, with incremental cost estimates varying between a saving of £1642 (standard deviation £885) per patient, assuming the same per-kilogram dosing of PR tacrolimus (Advagraf^®) and IR tacrolimus (Prograf^®) and an increase of £1350 (£964) using RCT dose data.

CONCLUSION

Data from a recent analysis of routine clinical practice data in liver transplant recipients on PR tacrolimus and IR tacrolimus showed significant differences in long-term graft survival in favor of PR tacrolimus. Modeling these data in the UK showed that, over a 3-year time horizon, one graft would be saved for every 14 patients treated with PR tacrolimus with minimal impact on costs when compared with branded IR tacrolimus (Prograf^®).

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.

When is Genomic Testing Cost-Effective? Testing for Lynch Syndrome in Patients with Newly-Diagnosed Colorectal Cancer and Their Relatives

Varying estimates of the cost-effectiveness of genomic testing applications can reflect differences in study questions, settings, methods and assumptions. This review compares recently published cost-effectiveness analyses of testing strategies for Lynch Syndrome (LS) in tumors from patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) for either all adult patients or patients up to age 70 along with cascade testing of relatives of probands. Seven studies published from 2010 through 2015 were identified and summarized. Five studies analyzed the universal offer of testing to adult patients with CRC and two others analyzed testing patients up to age 70; all except one reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) < $ 100,000 per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year gained. Three studies found lower ICERs for selective testing strategies using family history-based predictive models compared with universal testing. However, those calculations were based on estimates of sensitivity of predictive models derived from research studies, and it is unclear how sensitive such models are in routine clinical practice. Key model parameters that are influential in ICER estimates included 1) the number of first-degree relatives tested per proband identified with LS and 2) the cost of gene sequencing. Others include the frequency of intensive colonoscopic surveillance, the cost of colonoscopy, and the inclusion of extracolonic surveillance and prevention options.

Economic impact of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia in patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To identify the direct and indirect costs of hypoglycemia in patients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in the US setting.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to identify and review studies that reported data on the economic burden of hypoglycemia and the related medical resource consumption or productivity loss related to hypoglycemia in patients with Type 1 or Type 2 DM. Relevant information was collated in an economic model to assess the direct and indirect costs following severe and non-severe hypoglycemic events in Type 1 and Type 2 DM.

RESULTS

Detailed evidence of the medical cost burden of hypoglycemic events was identified from 14 studies. For both Type 1 and Type 2 DM, episodes requiring assistance from a healthcare practitioner were identified as particularly costly and amounted to $1161 per episode (direct costs) compared with episode costs of $66 and $11 for events requiring third-party (non-medical) assistance and events managed by self-treatment, respectively. Indirect costs associated with severe hypoglycemia requiring non-medical assistance, severe hypoglycemia requiring medical assistance, and non-severe hypoglycemia were predicted to be $242, $160, and $11 for patients with Type 1 diabetes and $579, $176, and $11 for patients with Type 2 diabetes, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both severe and non-severe hypoglycemia incur substantial healthcare costs. Failure to account for these costs may under-estimate the value of management strategies that minimize hypoglycemia risk.

Cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with edoxaban compared to warfarin in Germany

We compared the cost-utility analysis for edoxaban at both doses with that of dabigatran at both doses, rivaroxaban, and apixaban (non vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, NOAC) in a German population. Data of clinical outcome events were taken from edoxaban's ENGAGE-AF, dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. The base-case analyses of a 65-year-old person with a CHADS2 score >1 gained 0.17 and 0.21 quality-adjusted life years over warfarin for 30 mg od and 60 mg od edoxaban, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50.000 and 68.000 euro per quality-adjusted life years for the higher and lower dose of edoxaban (Monte Carlo simulation). These findings were also similar to those for apixaban and more cost-effective than the other NOAC regimens. The current market costs for direct oral anticoagulants are high in relation to the quality of life gained from a German public health care insurance perspective. The willingness-to-pay threshold was lowest for 60 mg edoxaban compared to all direct oral anticoagulants and for 30 mg edoxaban compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report

Clinical trials evaluating medicines, medical devices, and procedures now commonly assess the economic value of these interventions. The growing number of prospective clinical/economic trials reflects both widespread interest in economic information for new technologies and the regulatory and reimbursement requirements of many countries that now consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy. As decision makers increasingly demand evidence of economic value for health care interventions, conducting high-quality economic analyses alongside clinical studies is desirable because they broaden the scope of information available on a particular intervention, and can efficiently provide timely information with high internal and, when designed and analyzed properly, reasonable external validity. In 2005, ISPOR published the Good Research Practices for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. ISPOR initiated an update of the report in 2014 to include the methodological developments over the last 9 years. This report provides updated recommendations reflecting advances in several areas related to trial design, selecting data elements, database design and management, analysis, and reporting of results. Task force members note that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness (rather than efficacy) when possible, should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects. Collection of economic data should be fully integrated into the study. An incremental analysis should be conducted with an intention-to-treat approach, complemented by relevant subgroup analyses. Uncertainty should be characterized. Articles should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic studies alongside trials are complementary to other evaluations (e.g., modeling studies) as information for decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation across countries

We did a cost-utility analysis for the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the German population based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALY), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The aim of our investigation was to examine cost-utility for current German drug market costs and compared to other countries. Outcome data were taken from dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET AF, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. A Markov decision model, the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), and further sensitivity analyses were used to simulate comparisons between NOACs over a follow up period of 20 years. The main perspective used for the analyses is from a German public health care insurance perspective. The base-case analyses of a 65 years old person with a CHADS2 score >1 resulted in 7.56-7.64 QALYs gained for warfarin. NOACs added 0.04-0.19 QALYs. Total costs for warfarin ranged from 7622 to 9069<euro> and for NOACs from 19537 to 20048<euro>. The sensitivity analysis indicated that current German market costs for the NOACs exceed a willingness-to-pay threshold of (hypothetical) 50000<euro>/QALY in all treatment regimen. The MCS showed willingness-to-pay thresholds from 60500<euro>/QALY for apixaban to 278000<euro>/QALY for dabigatran 110 mg bid, with values for dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban in between. In conclusion, from a German public health care insurance perspective current market costs are high in relation to the quality of life gained. These results from clinical studies (efficacy) remain to be confirmed under real life conditions (effectiveness).

US-Based Drug Cost Parameter Estimation for Economic Evaluations

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, more than 10% of national health expenditures are for prescription drugs. Assessing drug costs in US economic evaluation studies is not consistent, as the true acquisition cost of a drug is not known by decision modelers. Current US practice focuses on identifying one reasonable drug cost and imposing some distributional assumption to assess uncertainty.

METHODS

We propose a set of Rules based on current pharmacy practice that account for the heterogeneity of drug product costs. The set of products derived from our Rules, and their associated costs, form an empirical distribution that can be used for more realistic sensitivity analyses and create transparency in drug cost parameter computation. The Rules specify an algorithmic process to select clinically equivalent drug products that reduce pill burden, use an appropriate package size, and assume uniform weighting of substitutable products. Three diverse examples show derived empirical distributions and are compared with previously reported cost estimates.

RESULTS

The shapes of the empirical distributions among the 3 drugs differ dramatically, including multiple modes and different variation. Previously published estimates differed from the means of the empirical distributions. Published ranges for sensitivity analyses did not cover the ranges of the empirical distributions. In one example using lisinopril, the empirical mean cost of substitutable products was $444 (range = $23-$953) as compared with a published estimate of $305 (range = $51-$523).

CONCLUSIONS

Our Rules create a simple and transparent approach to creating cost estimates of drug products and assessing their variability. The approach is easily modified to include a subset of, or different weighting for, substitutable products. The derived empirical distribution is easily incorporated into 1-way or probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

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.

A literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of prostate-specific antigen test in prostate cancer screening

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in American men, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is its common screening procedure. In May 2012, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA-based screening. These recommendations contradict the current recommendations of other organizations such as the American Urological Association. The authors conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane to examine the published literature reporting the cost-effectiveness of PSA-based screening. The authors found ten studies each for US and non-US jurisdiction population. All reviewed studies concluded PSA-based screening to be cost effective in younger men (≤60 years of age) and at higher PSA levels (≥3 ng/ml). Further cost-effectiveness analyses reflecting latest clinical practice and current perspectives regarding adverse outcomes of potentially unnecessary treatment are required, especially from the US government perspective.

Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version) : consensus and compromise

The first version of the Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation was published by Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) in 2006. Since the introduction of the first version, domestic experience with the application of the recommendations has accumulated, and methodologies in certain areas have progressed considerably. Based on these experiences, HIRA initiated a guidelines revision project to address the need for revisions. The purpose of this study is to share the process used to complete these guideline revisions and to provide the contents of the revised guidelines. In developing the current revision, meetings with the advisory committee and working-level meetings with pharmaceutical companies were held several times to reach as much of a consensus as possible, and the results of a survey of pharmaceutical companies and decision makers regarding the existing guidelines were considered. The second version of the guidelines clarified the level of data requirement ('must', 'recommended', 'preferred') based on the data availability, the information needs of the decision makers and the strength of the evidence. The recommended perspective economic studies should take has been modified and additional guidance has been provided on QALY measurement. Manuals for systematic reviews and indirect comparisons have been published, and a standardized reporting format for expert opinions has been added. Sections on preferred methods for evaluations, sensitivity analysis, modelling and time horizon have been elucidated. The revised guidelines clarify the expression of the recommendations, making them more user-friendly, and provide more specific guidance to improve the quality and comparability across submissions.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.

OBJECTIVE

The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

METHODS

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.

RESULTS

Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption

Increased health care spending has placed pressure on public and private payers to prioritize spending. Cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis is the main tool used by payers to prioritize coverage of new therapies. We argue that reimbursement based on CE is subject to a form of the "Lucas critique"; the goals of CE policies may not materialize when firms affected by the policies respond optimally to them. For instance, because 'costs' in CE analysis reflect prices set optimally by firms rather than production costs, observed CE levels will depend on how firm pricing responds to CE policies. Observed CE is therefore endogenous. When CE is endogenously determined, policies aimed at lowering spending and improving overall CE may paradoxically raise spending and lead to the adoption of more resource-costly treatments. We empirically illustrate whether this may occur using data on public coverage decisions in the United Kingdom.

Cost-effectiveness of truncated therapy for hepatitis C based on rapid virologic response

BACKGROUND

Shortened courses of treatment with pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin for patients with hepatitis C virus infection who experience rapid virologic response can be effective in appropriately selected patients. The cost-effectiveness of truncated therapy is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of response-guided therapy versus standard-duration therapy on the basis of best available evidence.

METHODS

We developed a decision model for chronic hepatitis C virus infection representing two treatment strategies: 1) standard-duration therapy with pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin for 48 weeks in patients with genotype 1 or 4 and for 24 weeks in patients with genotype 2 or 3 and 2) truncated therapy (i.e., 50% decrease in treatment duration) in patients with rapid virologic response. Patients for whom truncated therapy failed began standard-duration therapy guided by genotype. We used a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, mean lifetime costs were $46,623 ± $2,483 with standard-duration therapy and $42,354 ± $2,489 with truncated therapy. Mean lifetime quality-adjusted life-years were similar between the groups (17.1 ± 0.7 with standard therapy; 17.2 ± 0.7 with truncated therapy). Across model simulations, the probability of truncated therapy being economically dominant (i.e., both cost saving and more effective) was 78.6%. The results were consistent when we stratified the data by genotype. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the results were sensitive only to changes in treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Truncated therapy based on rapid virologic response is likely to be cost saving for treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Cost-effectiveness varied with small changes in relative treatment efficacy.

Cost, utilization, and patterns of medication use associated with chronic idiopathic urticaria

BACKGROUND

The literature on chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) lacks large-scale population-based studies.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize an insured population with CIU, including their demographic characteristics and comorbidities.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using insurance claims. We included patients with 1 outpatient claim with an International Classification of Diseases, 9(th)Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code for idiopathic, other specified, or unspecified urticaria (ICD-9-CM 708.1, 708.8, or 708.9) and either (1) another of these claims 6 or more weeks later; (2) a claim for angioedema (ICD-9-CM 995.1) 6 or more weeks from the urticaria diagnosis; or (3) overlapping claims for 2 prescription medications commonly used for CIU.

RESULTS

We identified 6,019 patients who had claims consistent with CIU. The mean age was 36 years. Fifty-six percent of patients had primary care physicians as their usual source of care, 14% had allergists, and 5% had dermatologists. Allergic rhinitis was diagnosed in 48%, asthma in 21%, other allergy in 19%, and atopic dermatitis in 8%. Sixty-seven percent of patients used prescription antihistamines, 54% used oral corticosteroids (OCSs), 24% used montelukast, and 9% used oral doxepin. Antihistamine users received a mean of 152 days of prescription antihistamines, OCS users 30 days of OCSs, montelukast users 190 days of montelukast, and oral doxepin users 94 days of doxepin.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physicians managed most patients with CIU. Antihistamines were the most common treatment for CIU, although OCSs were frequently prescribed. Thirty days of OCS supply among users may represent multiple steroid bursts each year. Given the known risks of OCSs, identifying other CIU treatments with more favorable safety profiles may be beneficial.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of community-based strategies for blood pressure control in a low-income developing country: findings from a cluster-randomized, factorial-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence on economically efficient strategies to lower blood pressure (BP) from low- and middle-income countries remains scarce. The Control of Blood Pressure and Risk Attenuation (COBRA) trial randomized 1341 hypertensive subjects in 12 randomly selected communities in Karachi, Pakistan, to 3 intervention programs: (1) combined home health education (HHE) plus trained general practitioner (GP); (2) HHE only; and (3) trained GP only. The comparator was no intervention (or usual care). The reduction in BP was most pronounced in the combined group. The present study examined the cost-effectiveness of these strategies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Total costs were assessed at baseline and 2 years to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on (1) intervention cost; (2) cost of physician consultation, medications, diagnostics, changes in lifestyle, and productivity loss; and (3) change in systolic BP. Precision of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates was assessed by 1000 bootstrapping replications. Bayesian probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also performed. The annual costs per participant associated with the combined HHE plus trained GP, HHE alone, and trained GP alone were $3.99, $3.34, and $0.65, respectively. HHE plus trained GP was the most cost-effective intervention, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23 (95 confidence interval, 6-99) per mm Hg reduction in systolic BP compared with usual care, and remained so in 97.7 of 1000 bootstrapped replications.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined intervention of HHE plus trained GP is potentially affordable and more cost-effective for BP control than usual care or either strategy alone in some communities in Pakistan, and possibly other countries in Indochina with similar healthcare infrastructure.

The costs and consequences of omalizumab in uncontrolled asthma from a USA payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, reduces exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled allergic asthma. The study objective was to estimate the costs and consequences of omalizumab compared to usual care from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

We estimated payer costs, quality-adjusted survival (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of omalizumab compared to usual care using a state-transition simulation model that included sensitivity analyses. Every 2 weeks, patients could transition between chronic asthma and exacerbation health states. The best available evidence informed the clinical and cost input estimates. Five years of omalizumab treatment followed by usual care was assumed to estimate a lifetime horizon. Omalizumab responders (60.5% of treated) were modeled as a separate scenario where nonresponders reverted back to usual care after 16 weeks of active treatment.

RESULTS

The mean lifetime discounted costs and QALYs were $83,400 and 13.87 for usual care and $174,500 and 14.19 for omalizumab plus usual care resulting in $287 200/QALY (95% interval: $219,300, $557, 900). The ICER was $172 300/QALY when comparing omalizumab to usual care in the responder scenario. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were sensitive to the difference in treatment-specific utilities for the chronic state, exacerbation-associated mortality, omalizumab price, exacerbation rates, and response definition.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that adding omalizumab to usual care improves QALYs at an increase in direct medical costs. The cost-effectiveness of omalizumab is similar to other chronic disease biologics. The value increases when omalizumab response is used to guide long-term treatment.