Carlos Gouveia Pinto

Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals

SummaryIn recent years there has been a large increase in the number of economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals. Many of these studies have been commissioned by individual pharmaceutical companies, in support of new or existing products. In 2 countries, Australia and Canada (in the province of Ontario), draft guidelines issued by the government have outlined the requirements for economic evaluations to be submitted in support of requests for reimbursement (government subsidy) of particular products. One consequence of the guidelines is that they clarify what is required, and in specifying the procedure for submission of dossiers, identify a clear audience for the economic evaluation.In contrast, the situation in Europe is diverse. A wide range of healthcare systems exist, including national health services and more liberal systems, involving a wide range of insurers and providers. European countries also differ widely in their approach to the pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals. Because of this diversity, the nature, conduct and impact of economic evaluation in Europe is not clear. It is therefore difficult for pharmaceutical companies to develop appropriate strategies for economic evaluation and for analysts to decide on appropriate study methodology.This article reviews the nature of any official guidance or requirements for economic evaluation, the potential for use of economic evaluation, the range of studies carried out and the identifiable impacts. There is currently no official guidance in any country, although some countries are considering issuing guidelines. In some countries there is official encouragement to pharmaceutical companies to undertake studies, and where economic data have been presented they have been considered by the relevant committees.The potential uses of economic evaluation vary widely from country to country. These can be classified in terms of a potential role in undertaking national price negotiations, deciding on reimbursement status or copayment level, deciding on inclusion in local formularies or in treatment guidelines, or in improving prescribing decisions.Approximately 80 economic evaluations of pharmaceutical products have been conducted to date in Europe, covering a wide range of clinical areas. There are relatively few examples of identifiable effects of such studies. In part this is because it is often difficult to assess the part played by various items of data. Nevertheless, the overriding conclusion is that economic evaluation of medicines is likely to be more relevant in Europe in the future. The problem for the pharmaceutical industry is in determining when and how.

Cost-Minimisation Study of Dorzolamide versus Brinzolamide in the Treatment of Ocular Hypertension and Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma In Four European Countries

AbstractObjective: Cost is an issue when prescribing two drugs with equivalent efficacy. We compared the direct medical costs of topical brinzolamide 1% (twice a day or three times daily) with topical dorzolamide 2% (twice a day or three times daily) in France, Italy, Portugal and Spain in patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma. Design and setting: Three double-blind, controlled, randomised trials (with a study duration of 3 months) compared the response rate of brinzolamide twice a day or three times daily versus dorzolamide three times daily, and the response rate of brinzolamide-timolol twice a day versus a dorzolamide-timolol combination twice a day. A fourth double-blind randomised trial (with a duration of 12 months) compared brinzolamide twice a day and three times daily with timolol monotherapy. Local tolerance was compared in two dedicated studies. Rates of switching to a new medication regimen were evaluated through a US health maintenance organisation database. In case of treatment failure, the patients were treated with latanoprost. A model was developed to value direct medical costs over 3 months. The economic perspective was that of the third-party payer and the patient, and included direct medical costs (reimbursed part plus co-payment). Patients: Patients with ocular hypertension and/or primary open-angle glaucoma who had not responded to or could not tolerate β-blocker therapy. Outcome measure: The daily direct medical costs of therapy with the two drugs. Results: As monotherapy, brinzolamide twice daily and three times daily was found to be as efficacious as dorzolamide three times a day. Brinzolamide twice daily plus timolol was also as efficacious as a combination of dorzolamide and timolol twice a day. Stinging of the eye upon instillation with brinzolamide was experienced by fewer patients than with dorzolamide (p < 0.0001). The likelihood of patients treated with dorzolamide changing therapy was 1.28 times greater than that for those treated with brinzolamide. The size of the brinzolamide drop is 18.7% smaller than that of dorzolamide allowing seven more therapy days per bottle with brinzolamide twice daily than with dorzolamide monotherapy, and five more days when brinzolamide is used three times a day. The direct medical costs for patients treated with brinzolamide were lower in all four European countries when drop size was taken into account than for those treated with dorzolamide. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings. Conclusion: Because brinzolamide can be prescribed twice daily in monotherapy and because fewer patients treated with brinzolamide switch therapy due to local intolerance, our model suggests that brinzolamide is a cost-saving alternative to dorzolamide.

Cost effectiveness of emedastine versus levocabastine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in 7 European countries.

AbstractObjective: To assess the cost effectiveness of emedastine, a new antihistamine, versus levocabastine in the treatment of acute allergic conjunctivitis (AAC) in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. Design and setting: Randomised double-blind multicountry clinical trial followed by economic modelling from the treatment provider perspective. Patients: A total of 221 patients (109 emedastine, 112 levocabastine) with AAC were included. Methods: The clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of emedastine 0.05% and levocabastine 0.05%, both twice daily, for 42 days, using ocular redness, itching, days without symptoms and clinical failure as outcome measures. The cost of first-line treatment failure, including visits, drugs and laboratory examinations, was established in each country from a panel of ophthalmologists and general practitioners. Full sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: From day 7 to 42, patients treated with emedastine had less itching (p < 0.001) and less redness (p < 0.001). The failure rate was 10% less (p < 0.02) with emedastine and patients treatedwith emedastine had an incremental 8.5 days (p < 0.01) without symptoms. Emedastine and levocabastine were equally well tolerated. In all European countries, the cost of failurewas lower with emedastine. Emedastine was found to be economically dominant relative to levocabastine, i.e. more effective and less expensive, in Belgium, Germany, Portugal and Sweden; in France, The Netherlands and Norway the incremental cost was low (less than 1 euro per additional symptom-free day). Conclusion: Through a model based on a randomised clinical trial and cost estimates of treatment failure derived from practitioner interviews, emedastine is a cost-effective treatment of AAC.

EDUCATION AND SUPPORT NETWORKS FOR ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH INTERVENTIONS

The aim of Working Group 5 is to develop and coordinate education and support networks for individuals and organizations undertaking or using assessment of health interventions and to identify needs in the field and assist in the establishment of new provisions.