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

Incorporating healthcare access and equity in economic evaluations: a scoping review of guidelines

BACKGROUND

International development agendas increasingly push for access to healthcare for all through universal healthcare coverage. Health economic evaluations and health technology assessment (HTA) could provide evidence to support this but do not routinely incorporate consideration of equitable access.

METHODS

We undertook an international scoping review of health economic evaluation and HTA guidelines to examine how well issues of healthcare access and equity are represented, evidence recommendations, and gaps in current guidance to support evidence generation in this area. Guidelines were sourced from guideline repositories and websites of international agencies and organizations providing best practice methods guidance. Articles providing methods guidance for the conduct of HTA, or health economic evaluation, were included, except where they were not available in English and a suitable translation could not be obtained.

RESULTS

The search yielded forty-seven national, four international, and nine independent guidelines, along with eighty-six articles providing specific methods guidance. The inclusion of equity and access considerations in current guidance is extremely limited. Where they do feature, detail on specific methods for providing evidence on these issues is sparse.

DISCUSSION

Economic evaluation could be a valuable tool to provide evidence for the best healthcare strategies that not only maximize health but also ensure equitable access to care for all. Such evidence would be invaluable in supporting progress towards universal healthcare coverage. Clear guidance is required to ensure evaluations provide evidence on the best strategies to support equitable access to healthcare, but such guidance rarely exists in current best practice and guidance documents.

Economic Evaluation of a Personalized Nutrition Plan Based on Omic Sciences Versus a General Nutrition Plan in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Modeling Study Based on Trial Data in Denmark

BACKGROUND

Since there is no diet that is perfect for everyone, personalized nutrition approaches are gaining popularity to achieve goals such as the prevention of obesity-related diseases. However, appropriate choices about funding and encouraging personalized nutrition approaches should be based on sufficient evidence of their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In this study, we assessed whether a newly developed personalized plan (PP) could be cost-effective relative to a non-personalized plan in Denmark.

METHODS

Results of a 10-week randomized controlled trial were combined with a validated obesity economic model to estimate lifetime cost-effectiveness. In the trial, the intervention group (PP) received personalized home-delivered meals based on metabolic biomarkers and personalized behavioral change messages. In the control group these meals and messages were not personalized. Effects were measured in body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Costs [euros (€), 2020] were considered from a societal perspective. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was assessed using a multi-state Markov model. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the trial, no significant differences were found in the effectiveness of PP compared with control, but wide confidence intervals (CIs) were seen [e.g., BMI (-0.07, 95% CI -0.51, 0.38)]. Lifetime estimates showed that PP increased costs (€520,102 versus €518,366, difference: €1736) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (15.117 versus 15.106, difference: 0.011); the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was therefore high (€158,798 to gain one QALY). However, a 20% decrease in intervention costs would reduce the ICUR (€23,668 per QALY gained) below an unofficial gross domestic product (GDP)-based willingness-to-pay threshold (€47,817 per QALY gained).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the willingness-to-pay threshold and the non-significant differences in short-term effectiveness, PP may not be cost-effective. However, scaling up the intervention would reduce the intervention costs. Future studies should be larger and/or longer to reduce uncertainty about short-term effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04590989).

International Price Comparisons of Anticancer Drugs: A Scheme for Improving Patient Accessibility

Background: The demand for implementing a new listing scheme to expedite patient access to novel oncology drugs has increased in South Korea. This study was conducted to compare the prices of anticancer drugs between eight countries and to explore the feasibility of a ‘pre-listing and post-evaluation’ scheme to expedite patient access to oncology drugs. Methods: This study included 34 anticancer drugs, which were reimbursed between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2017. The unit price and sales volume of the study drugs were collected from eight countries and IQVIA data, respectively. The prices were adjusted to estimate the ex-factory prices using the discount/rebate rate suggested by the Health Insurance Review Agency (HIRA). The four price indices of Laspeyres, Paasche, Fisher, and the unweighted index were calculated using the price in each country, the average price, and lowest price among the study countries. Each currency was converted using the currency exchange rate and purchasing power parity (PPP). The budget impact of implementing the proposed pre-listing and post-evaluation scheme on payers was calculated. Results: Based on the currency exchange rate, anticancer drug prices were higher in other countries (index range: 1.05–2.78) compared to Korea. The prices in Korea were similar to countries with the lowest prices. When the PPP was applied, prices were higher in the US, Germany, Italy, and Japan than in Korea (range: 1.10–2.13); however, the prices were lower in the UK, France, and Switzerland than in Korea (range: 0.72–0.99). The financial burden of implementing the pre-listing and post-evaluation scheme was calculated at 0.83% of the total anticancer drug sales value in Korea from 2013–2017. Conclusions: The prices of anticancer drugs in Korea were similar to the lowest prices among the seven other study countries. A pre-listing and post-evaluation scheme should be considered to improve patient access to novel anticancer drugs by reducing the reimbursement review time and uncertainties.

Trends in the pricing and reimbursement of new anticancer drugs in South Korea: an analysis of listed anticancer drugs during the past three years

Objective: This study aimed to examine patient accessibility to new anticancer drugs including reimbursement coverage, time to listing, and listing price during the recent 3 years after the introduction of alternative pricing and reimbursement pathways in South Korea.Methods: Anticancer drugs were selected for analysis from the new drugs reviewed from January 2017 to March 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to present the levels of the listing prices. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the list price in comparison to the External Reference Price(ERP) and the time to listing.Results: Thirty-two anticancer drugs were included in analysis. The average time to listing for these drugs was 36.7 months. The ratio of the listing price in comparison with Average Adjusted Price from seven reference countries was from 12.6% to 90.2%. Pearson's correlation coefficient for the correlation between the ratio of the listing price to the ERP and the time to listing was -0.37 and was statistically significant (p = 0.035).Conclusions: Policies that relate to the scope of reimbursement, time to reimbursement, and list price should be able to equally reflect patient accessibility and national health insurance finances, as well as the impact on industry as a whole.

Comparison of Ophthalmic Medication Prices Between the United States and Australia

Importance

Health care prices may drive differences in health care costs across high-income nations. Adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept are high-cost medications in the United States and Australia. A comparison of their prices over time may elucidate how ophthalmic medication prices contribute to health care costs.

Objective

To compare changes in the prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in the United States and Australia, the highest and lowest spenders on health care, respectively, among high-income nations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective price comparison study examined prices paid by government entities in the United States (Medicare) and Australia (Pharmaceuticals and Benefits Scheme). The analysis and data collection were conducted from March 28 to May 4, 2018, in accordance with guidelines set by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force on Good Research Practices and prior published studies. No human participants or related data were included in this study.

Exposures

The change in mean prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in the United States and Australia.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Initial, final, and change in medication price annually from 2013 to 2017 in inflation-adjusted 2017 US dollars.

Results

The mean prices (US dollar prices unadjusted for inflation) in 2013 and 2017 in the United States were $1114 ($1053) and $1818 ($1818), respectively, for adalimumab; $2102 ($1988) and $1904 ($1904), respectively, for ranibizumab; and $2074 ($1961) and $1956 ($1956), respectively, for aflibercept. The mean (Australian dollar prices unadjusted for inflation) 2013 and 2017 prices in Australia were $1854 (A $1797) and $1206 (A $1574), respectively, for adalimumab; $2157 (A $2090) and $972 (A $1268), respectively, for ranibizumab; and $2030 (A $1967) and $996 (A $1300), respectively, for aflibercept. The estimated annual change in price for adalimumab was +12.8% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.5%) in the United States compared with -11.1% (95% CI, -15.0% to -7.1%) in Australia, a difference of 23.9% per year (95% CI, 19.7%-28.0%; P < .001). The annual change in price for ranibizumab was -2.6% (95% CI, -3.9% to -1.3%) in the United States compared with -18.5% (95% CI, -29.3% to -7.8%) in Australia, a difference of 15.9% per year (95% CI, 7.6%-24.2%; P = .003). The annual change in price for aflibercept was -1.5% (95% CI, -2.2% to -0.7%) in the United States compared with -16.9% (95% CI, -25.1% to -8.6%) in Australia, a difference of 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1%-21.8%; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this study indicate that the prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept significantly decreased during the past 5 years in Australia compared with the United States. These data do not indicate why these differences are noted or what actions might affect future pricing in either country.

The Availability, Pricing, and Affordability of Essential Diabetes Medicines in 17 Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries

Background: One third of the world population does not have access to essential medicines. Diabetes require a long-term therapy, which incurs significant health care cost and thus impact access and affordability. This study aims to assess the availability, prices, and affordability of four essential medicines used to treat diabetes in private primary care pharmacies in 17 countries.

Methods: Data on affordability, availability, and prices of four essential diabetes medicines from 51 primary care pharmacies across 17 countries were obtained using a variation of the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) methodology. The surveyed countries were Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, China, Jordan, Russia, Armenia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Georgia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Tanzania. International reference prices and daily income of the lowest-paid unskilled government workers were used as comparators. The prices were converted into US$ using both foreign exchange rates and purchasing power parity. We compared patterns of affordability and availability and prices of innovator brand (IB) and lowest priced generic (LPG) of diabetes medicines by WHO regional groupings and by country level.

Results: Lowest priced generic of metformin 500 mg had the highest total mean availability (≥80%) among all the surveyed medicines. The total mean availability of insulin 100 IU/ml was only 36.21% (IBs and LPGs), where IB was more frequently available than LPG (50% vs. 26%) across 17 surveyed countries. Patients would have to spend more to procure 1-month’s supply of IB of insulin in low-income than patients in high-income countries (no. of day’s wages: 2.37 vs. 0.46, p = 0.038). For the majority of the surveyed countries the median price-ratio was less than 3. The highest PPP-adjusted prices for 30-day treatment with IB of insulin 100 IU/ml and metformin 500 mg were highest in Bangladesh ($80.21) and Tanzania ($4334.17), respectively.

Conclusion: Availability of generic form of insulin is poor; IB of insulin was more affordable in high-income countries than low-income countries. Most of the LPGs was reasonably priced and affordable to the lowest-paid unskilled worker.

Pricing appraisal of anti-cancer drugs in the South East Asian, Western Pacific and East Mediterranean Region

BACKGROUND

Globally, cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality. High treatment cost, partly owing to higher prices of anti-cancer drugs, presents a significant burden on patients and healthcare systems. The aim of the present study was to survey and compare retail prices of anti-cancer drugs between high, middle and low income countries in the South-East Asia, Western Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean regions.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey design was used for the present study. Pricing data from ten counties including one from South-East Asia, two from Western Pacific and seven from Eastern Mediterranean regions were used in this study. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean unit prices for 26 anti-cancer drug presentations (similar pharmaceutical form, strength, and pack size) were used to compare prices of anti-cancer drugs across three regions. A structured form was used to extract relevant data. Data were entered and analysed using Microsoft Excel®.

RESULTS

Overall, Taiwan had the lowest mean unit prices while Oman had the highest prices. Six (23.1%) and nine (34.6%) drug presentations had a mean unit price below US$100 and between US$100 and US$500 respectively. Eight drug presentations (30.7%) had a mean unit price of more than US$1000 including cabazitaxel with a mean unit price of $17,304.9/vial. There was a direct relationship between income category of the countries and their mean unit price; low-income countries had lower mean unit prices. The average PPP-adjusted unit prices for countries based on their income level were as follows: low middle-income countries (LMICs): US$814.07; high middle income countries (HMICs): US$1150.63; and high income countries (HICs): US$1148.19.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great variation in pricing of anticancer drugs in selected countires and within their respective regions. These findings will allow policy makers to compare prices of anti-cancer agents with neighbouring countries and develop policies to ensure accessibility and affordability of anti-cancer drugs.

Distribution-Weighted Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Lifetime Health Loss

BACKGROUND

It is widely acknowledged that concerns for the worse off need to be integrated with the concern for cost effectiveness in priority setting, and several countries are seeking to do so. In Norway, a comprehensive framework for priority setting was recently proposed to specify the worse off in terms of lifetime loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). However, few studies have shown how to calculate such health losses, how to integrate health loss into cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and how such integration impacts the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The aim of this study was to do so.

METHODS

The proposed framework was applied to data from 15 recent economic evaluations of drugs. Available data were used to calculate the lifetime health loss of the target groups, and the proposed marginal weighting function was employed to adjust standard ICERs according to the size of this loss. Standard and weighted ICERs were compared to a threshold of US$35,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Lifetime health loss can be calculated with the use of available data and integrated by a marginal weighting function with CEAs. Such integration affected standard ICERs to a varying degree and changed the number of interventions considered cost effective from three to eight.

CONCLUSION

Calculation of lifetime health loss and its integration with CEA is feasible and can influence the reimbursement and ranking of interventions. To facilitate regular integration, guidelines for economic evaluations could require (i) adjustment according to distributional concerns and (ii) that data on health loss are extracted directly from the models and reported. Generic databases on health loss could be developed alongside such efforts.

A global comparison of the cost of patented cancer drugs in relation to global differences in wealth

Introduction

There are major differences in cancer drug prices around the world. However, the patterns of affordability of these drugs are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to compare patterns of affordability of cancer drugs in Australia, China, India, Israel, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Results

Cancer drug prices are highest in the United States. Cancer drugs are the least affordable in India by a large margin. Despite lower prices than in the USA, cancer drugs are less affordable in middle-income countries than in high-income countries.

Materials and Methods

We obtained the prices of a basket of cancer drugs in all 7 countries, and converted the prices to US$ using both foreign exchange rates and purchasing power parity. We assessed international differences in wealth by collecting values for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in addition to average salaries. We compared patterns of affordability of cancer drugs by dividing the drug prices by the markers of wealth.

Conclusions

Cancer drugs are less affordable in middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Differential pricing may be an acceptable policy to ensure global affordability and access to highly active anti-cancer therapies.

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.

Extending the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Programme to Include Males in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Giving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to females has been shown to be cost-effective in most countries. The epidemiological evidence and economic burden of HPV-related diseases have gradually been shown to be gender neutral. Randomized clinical trials report high efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the HPV vaccine in males aged 16-26 years. Some pioneering countries extended their HPV vaccination programme to include males, regardless of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Nevertheless, decision makers need evidence provided by modelling and economic studies to justify the funding of mass vaccination. This systematic review aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of extending the HPV vaccination programme to include males living in high-income countries.

METHODS

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness analyses of HPV vaccination in males was performed. Data were extracted and analysed using a checklist adapted from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies and 12 underlying mathematical models were identified. Model filiation showed evolution in time from aggregate models (static and dynamic) to individual-based models. When considering the health outcomes HPV vaccines are licensed for, regardless of modelling approaches and assumptions, extending vaccinations to males is rarely found to be cost-effective in heterosexual populations. Cost-effectiveness ratios become more attractive when all HPV-related diseases are considered and when vaccine coverage in females is below 40%.

CONCLUSION

Targeted vaccination of men who have sex with men (MSM) seems to be the best cost-effectiveness option. The feasibility of this strategy is still an open question, since early identification of this specific population remains difficult.

Availability, price and affordability of anti-tuberculosis drugs in Europe: a TBNET survey

Data on availability and cost of anti-tuberculosis (TB) drugs in relation to affordability at national level are scarce. We performed a cross-sectional study on availability and cost of anti-TB drugs at major TB-reference centres in 37 European countries. Costs of standardised treatment regimens used for pan-sensitive TB, multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB, pre-extensively drug-resistant (XDR) TB, and XDR-TB were compared using a purchasing power analysis. Affordability was evaluated in relation to monthly national gross domestic products per capita (GDP). At least one second-line injectable and either moxifloxacin or levofloxacin were available in all countries. Linezolid and clofazimine were available in 79% and 46% of the countries, respectively. Drug cost for XDR-TB was three-times more expensive than those for MDR-TB. The average price of treatment for pan-sensitive TB represented a maximum of 8.5% of the monthly GDP across countries, while for standard MDR-TB treatment this was <30% in only six countries and more than 100% in four countries. Treatment of XDR-TB represented more than 100% of a month's GDP in all countries where the regimen was available. High cost and limited availability of drugs for treatment of drug-resistant TB, particularly beyond resistance to first-line drugs, are a major impediment to successful TB control in Europe.

Cross-national comparison of medical costs shared by payers and patients: a study of postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer based on assumption case scenarios and reimbursement fees

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to estimate and cross-nationally compare the medical costs shared by payers and patients and the distributions of medical costs by cost category.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We estimated the medical costs covered from definitive diagnosis to completion of treatments of early-stage breast cancer and follow-up, assuming almost identical medical care provided in Japan, the UK, and Germany. The analysis was performed from the payer's perspective. Medical costs were calculated by multiplying the unit costs by the number of units consumed, based on assumption case scenarios. The medical costs incurred by payers or patients were estimated according to the cost-sharing and the cost-bearing systems in each country.

RESULTS

The total medical costs in Japan were much lower than those in the UK and Germany, and these differences were mainly caused by the low costs of surgery and radiotherapy in Japan. For the base-case scenario, the co-payment in Japan (€ 3,486) was found to be 6.4-fold higher than that in Germany (€ 548). The payers in the European countries paid 2.9-fold more than those in Japan (€ ∼25,000 vs. € 8,627).

CONCLUSION

Our results will be useful for policy makers in considering how to share medical costs and how to allocate limited resources.

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.

The use of pharmacoeconomic evidence to support formulary decision making in Saudi Arabia: Methodological recommendations

In pharmacoeconomics the costs and consequences of alternative medications are compared. Many countries have begun to use pharmacoeconomic evidence to support decisions on licensing, pricing, reimbursement, or addition to the formulary. In Saudi Arabia, it is not mandatory to submit cost effectiveness evidence to support licensing or addition to the formulary decisions however, data will be considered if submitted. Previous evidence suggests that the use of pharmacoeconomic evidence by Saudi Pharmacy and Therapeutic (P&T) committee members in formulary decisions making process is limited mainly because of lack of expertise and lack of resources. This paper intended to provide Saudi P&T decision makers with a clear set of best practice methodological recommendations to help in increasing the utilisation of pharmacoeconomic evidence in the formulary decisions making process.

Botulinum toxin as treatment for focal dystonia: a systematic review of the pharmaco-therapeutic and pharmaco-economic value

Focal dystonia is a common, invalidating neurologic condition characterized by involuntary, sustained muscle contractions causing twisting movements and abnormal postures in one body part. Currently, botulinum toxin is the treatment of first choice. We performed a systematic review towards the pharmaco-therapeutic and pharmaco-economic value of botulinum toxin as treatment for focal dystonia, which yielded the following results. Botulinum toxin is the most effective treatment for reducing dystonic symptoms measured with dystonia-specific and general questionnaires, and pain in patients with focal dystonia. Seventy-one percent of patients with cervical dystonia had a reduction in neck pain compared to 12 % in placebo groups. Adverse events occur in 58 % of patients during treatment with botulinum toxin compared to 46 % treated with placebo. Especially dry mouth, neck weakness, dysphagia, and voice changes are common. Adverse events are usually mild and self-limiting. Health-related quality of life, measured with the SF-36 is 20-50 points lower in patients with focal dystonia compared to controls and the effect of botulinum toxin on health-related quality of life is unclear. Botulinum toxin treatment is expensive because the drug itself is expensive. Yearly costs for treating a patient with focal dystonia with botulinum toxin range from EUR 347 to EUR 3,633 and the gain in QALYs with BTX treatment is small. Focal dystonia impairs the productivity and the ability to work. At start of botulinum toxin treatment only 47-50 % was working. Botulinum toxin partly improves this. Overall, we conclude that botulinum toxin is an expensive drug with good effects. From a societal perspective, the costs may well weigh up to the regained quality of life. However, the available literature concerning costs, health-related quality of life and labor participation is very limited. An extensive cost-effectiveness study should be performed incorporating all these aspects.

An economic assessment model for in-center, conventional home, and more frequent home hemodialysis

More intensive and/or frequent hemodialysis may provide clinical benefits to patients with end-stage renal disease; however, these dialysis treatments are more convenient to the patients if provided in their homes. Here we created a standardized model, based on a systematic review of available costing literature, to determine the economic viability of providing hemodialysis in the home that arrays costs and common approaches for assessing direct medical and nonmedical costs. Our model was based on data from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The first year start-up costs for all hemodialysis modalities were higher than in subsequent years with modeled costs for conventional home hemodialysis lower than in-center hemodialysis in subsequent years. Modeled costs for frequent home hemodialysis was higher than both in-center and conventional home hemodialysis in the United Kingdom, but lower than in-center hemodialysis and higher than conventional home hemodialysis in Australia and Canada in subsequent years. The higher costs of frequent compared to conventional home hemodialysis were because of higher consumable usage due to dialysis frequency. Thus, our findings reinforce the conclusions of previous studies showing that home-based conventional and more frequent hemodialysis may provide clinical benefit at reasonable costs.

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.