Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: A multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to reveal through pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM) the contribution of a broad range of criteria to the value of the orphan drug lenvatinib for radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) in country-specific contexts. METHODS: The study was designed to enable comprehensive appraisal (12 quantitative, 7 qualitative criteria) in the current disease context (watchful waiting, sorafenib) of France, Italy and Spain. Data on the value of lenvatinib was collected from diverse stakeholders during country-specific panels and included: criteria weights (individual and social values); performance scores (judgments on evidence-collected through MCDA systematic review); qualitative impacts of contextual criteria; and verbal and written insights structured by criteria. The value contribution of each criterion was calculated and uncertainty explored. RESULTS: Comparative effectiveness, Quality of evidence (Spain and Italy) and Disease severity (France) received the greatest weights. Four criteria contributed most to the value of lenvatinib, reflecting its superior Comparative effectiveness (16-22% of value), the severity of RR-DTC (16-22%), significant unmet needs (14-21%) and robust evidence (14-20%). Contributions varied by comparator, country and individuals, highlighting the importance of context and consultation. Results were reproducible at the group level. Impacts of contextual criteria varied across countries reflecting different health systems and cultural backgrounds. The MCDA process promoted sharing stakeholders' knowledge on lenvatinib and insights on context. CONCLUSIONS: The value of lenvatinib was consistently positive across diverse therapeutic contexts. MCDA identified the aspects contributing most to value, revealed rich contextual insights, and helped participants express and explicitly tackle ethical trade-offs inherent to balanced appraisal and decisionmaking.

Economic impact of homeopathic practice in general medicine in France.

Health authorities are constantly searching for new ways to stabilise health expenditures. To explore this issue, we compared the costs generated by different types of medical practice in French general medicine: i.e. conventional (CM-GP), homeopathic (Ho-GP), or mixed (Mx-GP).Data from a previous cross-sectional study, EPI3 La-Ser, were used. Three types of cost were analysed: (i) consultation cost (ii) prescription cost and (iii) total cost (consultation + prescription). Each was evaluated as: (i) the cost to Social Security (ii) the remaining cost (to the patient and/or supplementary health insurance); and (iii) health expenditure (combination of the two costs).With regard to Social Security, treatment by Ho-GPs was less costly (42.00 vs 65.25 for CM-GPs, 35 % less). Medical prescriptions were two-times more expensive for CM-GPs patients (48.68 vs 25.62 ). For the supplementary health insurance and/or patient out-of-pocket costs, treatment by CM-GPs was less expensive due to the lower consultation costs (6.19 vs 11.20 for Ho-GPs) whereas the prescription cost was comparable between the Ho-GPs and the CM-GPs patients (15.87 vs 15.24 respectively) . The health expenditure cost was 20 % less for patients consulting Ho-GPs compared to CM-GPs (68.93 vs 86.63 , respectively). The lower cost of medical prescriptions for Ho-GPs patients compared to CM-GPs patients (41.67 vs 63.72 ) was offset by the higher consultation costs (27.08 vs 22.68 respectively). Ho-GPs prescribed fewer psychotropic drugs, antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.In conclusions management of patients by homeopathic GPs may be less expensive from a global perspective and may represent an important interest to public health.

European pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement conference.

The 14th Annual European Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Conference was sponsored by SMi Group Limited, London, UK. The participants included industry, government and private professionals involved in pricing and reimbursement. The purpose, each year, is to share advances in the discipline with respect to policies and theory.

Cost-benefit analysis of preventing sudden cardiac deaths with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus amiodarone.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-benefit assessment of prevention of sudden cardiac deaths with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) versus amiodarone from the perspective of the health-care systems in the UK and France. METHODS: Course after implantation with an ICD or taking amiodarone was modeled using discrete event simulation; 1000 pairs of identical patients were simulated 100 times for each analysis. Rates of life-threatening arrhythmia and death from other causes were assumed identical, but the case fatality of arrhythmia and hospitalization differ between treatments. Rates were based on published data, primarily from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Direct medical costs (in 2004 Euros) and lives saved were estimated over 5 years. The monetary value of a life (UK euro2.1 million, France euro2.0 million) was applied to this benefit and examined relative to the net investment required. RESULTS: ICDs decreased deaths during the 5 years from 37.0% to 29.7% at a net cost of euro26,222 to euro20,008 per patient, yielding cost-benefit ratios of 0.17 (UK) and 0.14 (France)-more than a 5 to 1 return on investment. Sensitivity analyses showed ICDs represent value for money whenever a life is valued at least at euro274,000. CONCLUSION: In these European countries where society values a life at more than euro2 million, ICDs are a worthwhile investment compared with amiodarone for primary prevention of sudden cardiac deaths in patients with heart failure.

Conjoint analysis of French and German parents' willingness to pay for meningococcal vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the willingness of parents in France and Germany to pay for meningococcal conjugate vaccines for their teenage children. METHODS: A conjoint analysis survey was administered to parents who had received counselling on the nature and risks of meningococcal disease in young people. In each country, half were randomly assigned to view a video with graphical depictions of the effects of meningococcaemia. Subjects were then shown a series of 18 sets of three vaccine descriptions. Each description listed the price of a hypothetical vaccine (range 15-304 euro; 2001 values), the duration of protection, and the number of serogroups of the bacteria covered. The survey asked which vaccine they preferred and whether they would buy it. Conditional logit and generalised linear-random effects logit models assessed the effect of product attributes, personal background and video viewership on the probability of indicating a purchase. RESULTS: 92.6% of subjects would purchase at least one of the vaccines they encountered. Price elasticity ranged from -1.20 (France) to -2.48 (Germany). Exposure to graphical depictions of disease consequences negligibly increased the overall willingness to purchase vaccine in French participants, but lowered the overall willingness in German participants. CONCLUSION: In Germany and France, where there is still limited out-of-pocket health spending, the majority of sampled respondents stated that they would purchase meningococcal vaccines with their own money.

The global value of vaccination.

While most agree that vaccination is one of the most important public health practices, vaccines continue to be underused and undervalued, and vaccine-preventable diseases remain a threat to world health. Perhaps one reason this gap remains is that decision-making generally is made on a vaccine-by-vaccine basis. There has been less attention to the value of vaccination in general. To more clearly identify this value, this paper reviews the cost-effectiveness literature and calculates the annual benefits of vaccination on a global scale.

Maritime health: a case for preventing influenza on the high seas.

For decades cruise ships have been recognized as foci for diarrheal illness. More recently influenza has been added to the list of diseases for which people on cruise ships are at risk. Influenza is a business risk involving cruise ship operating and litigation costs and travelers' loss in value. Immunizing the crews could be one way to prevent introduction and spread of influenza on cruise ships. A cost-effectiveness analysis for vaccination of crews on cruise ships was conducted showing that it is not only cost-effective but it is cost savings.