ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) includes the same strains as trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) plus an additional B strain of the other B lineage. The aim of the study was to analyse the public health and economic impact of replacing TIV with QIV in different scenarios in Spain. METHODS: A dynamic transmission model was developed to estimate the number of influenza B cases prevented under TIV and QIV strategies (<65 years (high risk) and ≥65 years). This model considers cross-protective immunity induced by different lineages of influenza B. The output of the transmission model was used as input for a decision tree model that estimated the economic impact of switching TIV to QIV. The models were populated with Spanish data whenever possible. Deterministic univariate and probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Replacing TIV with QIV in all eligible patients with current vaccine coverage in Spain may have prevented 138,707 influenza B cases per season and, therefore avoided 10,748 outpatient visits, 3,179 hospitalizations and 192 deaths. The replacement could save 532,768 in outpatient visit costs, 13 million in hospitalization costs, and 3 million in costs of influenza-related deaths per year. An additional 5 million costs associated with productivity loss could be saved per year, from the societal perspective. The budget impact from societal perspective would be 6.5 million, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) 1,527 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed robust results. In additional scenarios, QIV also showed an impact at public health level reducing influenza B related cases, outpatient visits, hospitalizations and deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show public health and economic benefits for influenza prevention with QIV. It would be an efficient intervention for the Spanish National Health Service with major health benefits especially in the population ≥65-year.
Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines/economics , Influenza, Human/economics , Vaccination/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Cost of Illness , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Infant , Influenza Vaccines/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Middle Aged , Public Health , Spain , Young AdultABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: High prices of second-generation direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients led to reimbursement decisions based on cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Areas covered: We performed a systematic review of cost-utility analyses (CUA) comparing interventions with second-generation DAA therapies with no treatment, and with previous therapies for chronic HCV patients until July 2017. A total of 36 studies were included: 30 studies from the perspective of the healthcare payer, 3 from the societal perspective, and 3 did not report the perspective. For genotype 1, the highest number of ICER comparison corresponds to sofosbuvir (SOF) triple therapy and SOF-based combinations which reported a cost per QALY systematically ranging from negative to lower than US$100,000 when compared with no treatment or dual therapy or Simeprevir triple therapy. Expert commentary: Selected studies may be overestimating the true cost per QALY of second-generation DAAs in the treatment of HCV, mainly because of neglecting non-healthcare costs, using official list prices which are higher than actual transaction prices and not adopting the long run drug price in a dynamic approach. In addition, the impact of important price reductions of several DAAs in recent years on cost per QALY should be considered.
Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/economics , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Costs , Hepacivirus/drug effects , Hepatitis C, Chronic/drug therapy , Hepatitis C, Chronic/economics , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Therapy, Combination , Genotype , Hepacivirus/genetics , Hepatitis C, Chronic/diagnosis , Hepatitis C, Chronic/virology , Humans , Models, Economic , Quality of Life , Sustained Virologic Response , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Spain, the decision of Price and Reimbursement (P&R) of a new drug must be taken between 180-270 days. The objective of this study was to assess the reimbursement timing in Spain for innovative drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2008 and December 2013 and to explore the potential impact of drug's price on this time. METHODS: Drugs approved were extracted from EMA's website, authorization dates in Spain from the Spanish Agency (AEMPS) and, P&R dates and prices from Nomenclátor and BotPlus. Depending on days from approval to reimbursement, drugs were quick (<180), on time (180-270) and delayed (>270). Depending on posology: chronic or acute. Depending on dispensing conditions: retail or hospital drugs. It was calculated: median, maximum, minimum, first, and third quartiles of time until reimbursement. RESULTS: 431 drugs were approved by EMA; 285 were innovative, from them 147 were approved by the AEMPS and reimbursed: 103 chronic and 44 acute. Median price/day was 2.44 for chronic and 21 for acute. From 2008-2011, 80% of drugs were reimbursed, in 2012 21% and in 2013 17%. Time from approval to reimbursement move from 230 days in 2009 to 431 days in 2013. From the 139 drugs with reimbursement date 33 were quick, 44 on time and 62 delayed. CONCLUSIONS: The median time from approval by the EMA of innovative drugs since the reimbursement in Spain in 2013 is double that of 2008. The main driver of delays in the process of P&R seems to be the budget impact of the drug instead of its unit price.
Subject(s)
National Health Programs/statistics & numerical data , Reimbursement Mechanisms/statistics & numerical data , Therapies, Investigational/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Drug Approval , Europe , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , National Health Programs/economics , Spain , Time Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
Fundamentos: En España la decisión de precio y financiación (PyF) de un nuevo medicamento debe tomarse entre 180 y 270 días. El objetivo de este estudio fue valorar el tiempo hasta la financiación en España de los medicamentos innovadores aprobados por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos (EMA) entre enero 2008 y diciembre 2013 y explorar el impacto potencial del precio del fármaco sobre este tiempo. Métodos: Los medicamentos aprobados se obtuvieron de la web de la EMA, las fechas de autorización de la Agencia Española del Medicamento (AEMPS) y las fechas del PyF y los precios del Nomenclátor y BotPlus. Según los días desde la aprobación hasta la financiación se clasificó a los medicamentos en rápidos (<180), en plazo (180-270) y con demora (>270). Según la duración del tratamiento en crónicos o agudos. Y según las condiciones de dispensación: de farmacia u hospital. Del tiempo transcurrido hasta la financiación, se calculó la mediana, el máximo, el mínimo así como el primer y tercer cuartiles. Resultados: Durante el período de estudio fueron aprobados por la EMA 431 medicamentos, de los cuales 285 eran innovadores. De estos 147 fueron aprobados por la AEMPS y financiados: 103 para tratamientos crónicos y 44 para agudos. La mediana del precio/día fue de 2,44 para crónicos y 21 para agudos. De 2008-2011 fueron financiados el 80% , en 2012 el 21% y en 2013 el 17%. El tiempo hasta la financiación pasó de 230 días en 2009 a 431 en 2013. Los 139 medicamentos con fecha de financiación fueron: 33 rápidos, 44 en plazo y 62 con demora. Conclusiones: La mediana del tiempo desde la aprobación por la EMA de los medicamentos innovadores hasta su financiación en España en 2013 es el doble que en 2008. El motor principal de los retrasos en el proceso de PyF parece ser el impacto presupuestario del fármaco más que su precio unitario (AU)
Background: In Spain, the decision of Price and Reimbursement (P&R) of a new drug must be taken between 180-270 days. The objective of this study was to assess the reimbursement timing in Spain for innovative drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between January 2008 and December 2013 and to explore the potential impact of drugs price on this time. Methods: Drugs approved were extracted from EMAs website, authorization dates in Spain from the Spanish Agency (AEMPS) and, P&R dates and prices from Nomenclátor and BotPlus. Depending on days from approval to reimbursement, drugs were quick (<180), on time (180-270) and delayed (>270). Depending on posology: chronic or acute. Depending on dispensing conditions: retail or hospital drugs. It was calculated: median, maximum, minimum, first, and third quartiles of time until reimbursement. Results: 431 drugs were approved by EMA; 285 were innovative, from them 147 were approved by the AEMPS and reimbursed: 103 chronic and 44 acute. Median price/day was 2.44 for chronic and 21 for acute. From 2008-2011, 80% of drugs were reimbursed, in 2012 21% and in 2013 17%. Time from approval to reimbursement move from 230 days in 2009 to 431 days in 2013. From the 139 drugs with reimbursement date 33 were quick, 44 on time and 62 delayed. Conclusions: The median time from approval by the EMA of innovative drugs since the reimbursement in Spain in 2013 is double that of 2008. The main driver of delays in the process of P&R seems to be the budget impact of the drug instead of its unit price (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Healthcare Financing , Drug Costs/statistics & numerical data , Drug Approval/organization & administration , Financial Management, Hospital/organization & administration , Drug Utilization/economics , Economics, Pharmaceutical/organization & administration , Drug PriceABSTRACT
AIM: Hemodialysis (HD) patients present an enhanced mortality. Since oxidative DNA damage can be considered a biomarker of genomic instability our aim was to evaluate the influence of this genetic biomarker in all-cause mortality in a group of HD patients followed for 4 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 123 chronic HD patients were included. Overall genomic damage was analyzed using the Comet assay. Oxidative DNA damage was measured using the Comet assay complemented with the use of Endo-III and FPG enzymes. Follow-up was carried out from January 2007 to July 2011. RESULTS: Selected HD patients had a mean age of 62 ± 15 years. During the follow-up 36% of patients died (48% due to cardiovascular disease) and 23% were transplanted. Older patients, with high CRP levels, low levels of cholesterol-HDL and albumin, and higher genetic damage at the beginning of the study showed an increased risk for mortality. Multivariate analysis showed that only genomic damage, age and CRP were independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows for the first time that, in HD patients, the presence of high levels of genomic damage is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality. This association remains significant after adjustment for relevant covariates.
