Pharmacological Acromegaly Treatment: Cost-Utility and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing drug strategies involving octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, and pegvisomant for the treatment of patients with acromegaly who have failed surgery, from a Brazilian public payer perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort Markov model was developed. One-year cycles were employed. The patients started at 45 years of age and were followed lifelong. Costs, efficacy, and quality of life parameters were retrieved from the literature. A discount rate (5%) was applied to both costs and efficacy. The results were reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated when applicable. Scenario analyses considered alternative dosages, discount rate, tax exemption, and continued use of treatment despite lack of response. Value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to explore uncertainty and to estimate the costs to be spent in future research. RESULTS: Only lanreotide showed an ICER reasonable for having its use considered in clinical practice (R$ 112,138/US$ 28,389 per QALY compared to no treatment). Scenario analyses corroborated the base-case result. VOI analysis showed that much uncertainty surrounds the parameters, and future clinical research should cost less than R$ 43,230,000/US$ 10,944,304 per year. VOI also showed that almost all uncertainty that precludes an optimal strategy choice involves quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: With current information, the only strategy that can be considered cost-effective in Brazil is lanreotide treatment. No second-line treatment is recommended. Significant uncertainty of parameters impairs optimal decision-making, and this conclusion can be generalized to other countries. Future research should focus on acquiring utility data.

Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C in Young Children Reduces Adverse Outcomes and Is Cost-Effective Compared with Deferring Treatment to Adulthood.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating young children with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) with new direct-acting antivirals. STUDY DESIGN: A state-transition model of chronic HCV was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing treatment at age 6 years vs delaying treatment until age 18 years. Model inputs were derived from recently conducted systematic reviews, published literature, and government statistics. Medical care costs were obtained from linked population level laboratory and administrative data (Ontario, Canada). Outcomes are expressed in expected quality-adjusted life-years and costs (CAD$). Analysis included a base-case to estimate the expected value and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the impact of uncertainty of the model inputs. RESULTS: After 20 years, treating 10 000 children early would prevent 330 cases of cirrhosis, 18 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 48 liver-related deaths. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of early treatment compared to delayed treatment was approximately $12 690/quality-adjusted life-years gained and considered cost-effective. Model results were robust to variation in fibrosis progression rates, disease state-based costs, treatment costs, and utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Delaying treatment until age 18 years results in an increased lifetime risk of late-stage liver complications. Early treatment in children is cost effective. Our work supports clinical and health policies that broaden HCV treatment access to young children.

Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.

International drug price comparisons: quality assessment / Comparación internacional de precios de medicamentos: evaluación de la calidad

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively summarize results (i.e., prices and affordability) reported from international drug price comparison studies and assess their methodological quality. METHODS: A systematic search of the most relevant databases-Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Scopus, from their inception to May 2009-was conducted to identify original research comparing international drug prices. International drug price information was extracted and recorded from accepted papers. Affordability was reported as drug prices adjusted for income. Study quality was assessed using six criteria: use of similar countries, use of a representative sample of drugs, selection of specific types of prices, identification of drug packaging, different weights on price indices, and the type of currency conversion used. RESULTS: Of the 1 828 studies identified, 21 were included. Only one study adequately addressed all quality issues. A large variation in study quality was observed due to the many methods used to conduct the drug price comparisons, such as different indices, economic parameters, price types, basket of drugs, and more. Thus, the quality of published studies was considered poor. Results varied across studies, but generally, higher income countries had higher drug prices. However, after adjusting drug prices for affordability, higher income countries had more affordable prices than lower income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between drug prices and affordability in different countries were found. Low income countries reported less affordability of drugs, leaving room for potential problems with drug access, and consequently, a negative impact on health. The quality of the literature on this topic needs improvement.

OBJETIVO: Resumir cuantitativamente los resultados (p. ej., precios y asequibilidad) presentados en estudios de comparación internacional de precios de medicamentos y evaluar su calidad metodológica. MÉTODOS: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda sistemática en las bases de datos más importantes -Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts y Scopus, desde la fecha de inicio hasta mayo del 2009- para identificar artículos de investigación original que comparaban precios de medicamentos entre distintos países. Se obtuvo y se registró la información sobre los precios de los medicamentos de los trabajos que fueron aprobados para ser incorporados en esta revisión. Para evaluar la asequibilidad se consideró la adaptación de los precios en función de los ingresos. Se evaluó la calidad de los estudios tomando como parámetro seis criterios: el uso en países similares, el uso de una muestra representativa de medicamentos, la selección de tipos específicos de precios, la descripción del tipo de envasado, las diferentes ponderaciones aplicadas a los índices de precios y el tipo de cambio empleado. RESULTADOS: De los 1-828 estudios encontrados, se incluyeron 21. Solo un estudio cumplió adecuadamente con todos los criterios de calidad. Se observó una amplia diferencia de calidad entre los estudios a causa de los diversos métodos empleados para comparar los precios de los medicamentos, tales como, diferentes índices, parámetros económicos, tipos de precio y canasta de medicamentos. Por lo tanto, se consideró que la calidad de los estudios publicados era deficiente. Si bien los resultados de los estudios son muy diversos, en general, los medicamentos fueron más costosos en los países de ingresos más altos. Sin embargo, una vez ajustados los precios en función de la asequibilidad, se observa que los países de ingresos más altos tienen precios más asequibles que los países de bajos ingresos. CONCLUSIONES: Se encontraron diferencias en los precios de los medicamentos y la asequibilidad entre los diferentes países. En los países de ingresos bajos, se registró un grado menor de asequibilidad, lo que origina posibles problemas de acceso a los medicamentos y, en consecuencia, tiene repercusiones negativas sobre la salud. Es necesario mejorar la calidad de los estudios dedicados a este tema.