Cost comparison of treating chronic hepatitis C genotype one with pegylated interferons in Ukraine

Based on the pivotal trial showing no clinically relevant differences between pegylated interferon α-2b (Peg-α-2b) and α-2a (Peg-α-2a) combined with ribavirin for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection in Ukraine, a cost-minimization analysis was performed using a 1 year time horizon and both a health care and patients’ perspective. A decision tree reflects treatment pathways. Drug costs were based on drug labeling and adjusted to the average body mass in Ukraine. Subgroup analysis was applied to deal with heterogeneity of patient’s weight causing dose changes. A break-even price of Peg-α-2a and Peg-α-2b (based on the average dose) was calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were carried out to reflect decision uncertainty. For an average body weight, total medical costs per patient differ from US$9220 for Peg-α-2b to US$9513 for Peg-α-2a from a health care perspective, and from US$15,212 to US$15,696 from a patients’ perspective. Sensitivity analyses show these results are robust. With average body weight, the break-even price of Peg-α-2b may be 7.3% higher than Peg-α-2a to have similar total costs.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force

There is a significant and growing interest among both payers and producers of medical products for agreements that involve a "pay-for-performance" or "risk-sharing" element. These payment schemes-called "performance-based risk-sharing arrangements" (PBRSAs)-involve a plan by which the performance of the product is tracked in a defined patient population over a specified period of time and the amount or level of reimbursement is based on the health and cost outcomes achieved. There has always been considerable uncertainty at product launch about the ultimate real-world clinical and economic performance of new products, but this appears to have increased in recent years. PBRSAs represent one mechanism for reducing this uncertainty through greater investment in evidence collection while a technology is used within a health care system. The objective of this Task Force report was to set out the standards that should be applied to "good practices"-both research and operational-in the use of a PBRSA, encompassing questions around the desirability, design, implementation, and evaluation of such an arrangement. This report provides practical recommendations for the development and application of state-of-the-art methods to be used when considering, using, or reviewing PBRSAs. Key findings and recommendations include the following. Additional evidence collection is costly, and there are numerous barriers to establishing viable and cost-effective PBRSAs: negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation costs can be substantial. For good research practice in PBRSAs, it is critical to match the appropriate study and research design to the uncertainties being addressed. Good governance processes are also essential. The information generated as part of PBRSAs has public good aspects, bringing ethical and professional obligations, which need to be considered from a policy perspective. The societal desirability of a particular PBRSA is fundamentally an issue as to whether the cost of additional data collection is justified by the benefits of improved resource allocation decisions afforded by the additional evidence generated and the accompanying reduction in uncertainty. The ex post evaluation of a PBRSA should, however, be a multidimensional exercise that assesses many aspects, including not only the impact on long-term cost-effectiveness and whether appropriate evidence was generated but also process indicators, such as whether and how the evidence was used in coverage or reimbursement decisions, whether budget and time were appropriate, and whether the governance arrangements worked well. There is an important gap in the literature of structured ex post evaluation of PBRSAs. As an innovation in and of themselves, PBRSAs should also be evaluated from a long-run societal perspective in terms of their impact on dynamic efficiency (eliciting the optimal amount of innovation).