Costs of the use of carbetocin in the prevention of uterine atony following delivery of the infant by Caesarean section - retrospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of using carbetocin in the prevention of uterine atony following delivery of the infant by Cesarean section (C-section) under epidural or spinal anesthesia with standard methods of prevention (SMP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study was based on data from three medical centers. A questionnaire was developed to gather patient records on consumption and costs of resources related to C-section, prevention of uterine atony and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) treatment. Six subpopulations were considered, depending on patient characteristics. The analysis covered two perspectives: that of the hospital and of the public payer. RESULTS: The subpopulations were homogenous, which was a premise for pooling the data. The use of carbetocin in the prevention of uterine atony following Cesarean section generates savings for hospital in comparison with SMP (oxytocin) in 5 of 6 subpopulations. The biggest savings were observed amongst patients who experienced severe PPH and reached 2.6-6.2 thousand PLN per patient. Costs of services related to C-section borne by the hospitals were higher than the refund received from a public payer. The greatest underestimation reached 12.1 thousand PLN per patient. Nevertheless, loss generated by this underfunding was lower in carbetocin versus oxytocin group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of carbetocin instead of SMP gives hospitals an opportunity to make savings as well as to reduce losses resulting from the underfunding of the services provided by the National Health Fund.

Pragmatic Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Combined With Advanced Pharmacoepidemiology for Benefit-Risk Assessments of Medicines Adapted to the Real-Life Constraints of Regulators: Development and Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) represents a promising method for benefit-risk assessment. Our goal was to develop features of pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM [Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking]) addressing real-life regulatory decision-making needs, incorporate advanced pharmacoepidemiology, and test the resulting benefit-risk framework using a case study. METHODS: The Intervention Outcomes domain of EVIDEM was transformed into a generic benefit-risk framework including clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse event (AE) criteria. The concept of relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB) was developed for comparability across products and therapeutic areas and over time. Evidence matrix was designed to include most relevant data from trials, observational studies, and models, including Bayesian and longitudinal modeling. The framework was tested with a panel of stakeholders using efalizumab for psoriasis as retrospective case study. Uncertainty was explored. RESULTS: The MCDA benefit-risk tree was adapted with psoriasis-specific subcriteria. Panelists assigned similar weights to benefits (0.48; SD, 0.20-0.70) and risks (0.52; SD, 0.10-0.60), with large variations reflecting diverse perspectives. Panelist scores reflected higher efficacy versus placebo, lower efficacy versus active comparators, and serious and fatal AEs identified postlicensing. Efalizumab's RBRB was positive at licensing in 2004 (0.29, scale -1 to +1) and ranged from -0.41 (vs active comparators) to 0.01 (vs placebo) in 2009, when its market authorization was withdrawn. Retesting indicated good reproducibility. Panelists acknowledged good face validity and the importance of criteria beyond benefit-risk in real-life assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The approach allows quantification and visualization of benefit-risk over time and across comparators. Combination of pragmatic MCDA designed to integrate criteria beyond benefit-risk and advanced statistics supports application of MCDA to further accountable benefit-risk assessments for real-life decision making.