RESUMO
Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.
Assuntos
Doenças Raras , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical practice is gaining increasing attention. This study aimed to provide a critical assessment of the current state-of-the-art and beliefs about the use of PRO in the management of people with epilepsy across some European countries. METHODS: Structured interviews were conducted with European experts to collect insights about (I) the personal experience with PRO; (II) the value and impact of PRO in the decision-making process at the national level; and (III) the interest for and use of PRO by national health authorities. RESULTS: Nine neurologists (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Poland, and United Kingdom), three health economists (Portugal, Romania, and Sweden), and one epidemiologist (Slovakia) participated. They all stated that PRO are collected at their own countries in the context of clinical trials and/or specific projects. During everyday clinical practice, PRO are collected routinely/almost routinely in Austria and Sweden and only at the discretion of the treating physicians in Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, and Portugal. There was complete consensus about the favorable impact that the PRO can have in terms of clinical outcomes, healthcare resources utilization, and general patient satisfaction. Only participants from Portugal and Sweden answered that the PRO are perceived as very important by the National Health Authorities of their respective countries. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist in attitudes and perspectives about PRO in epilepsy across Europe. An active plan is warranted to harmonize the measurement of PRO and ensure they can be relevant to people with epilepsy and health services.
Assuntos
Epilepsia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Humanos , Europa (Continente) , Itália , Polônia , Epilepsia/terapiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Limited studies have directly compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in different countries during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The objective of this study was to evaluate the HRQoL outcomes in the US, Sweden, and Norway during the first year under the pandemic. METHODS: In April 2020, during early phase of the pandemic, separately in the US, Sweden, and Norway, we surveyed 2,734, 1,003 and 1,020 respondents, then again in January 2021, we collected 2,252, 1,013 and 1,011 respondents. The survey was first developed in English and translated into Swedish and Norwegian. Selected variables were used for the current study. We collected respondents' HRQoL using the EQ-5D-5L. Respondents' background information included their sociodemographic data, medical history, and COVID-19 status. We reported the EQ-5D-5L utility, EQ-VAS, and the proportion of problems with each of the EQ-5D-5L health subdomains. Population quality-adjusted life year (QALY) changes based on EQ-5D-5L utility scores were also calculated. Outcomes were stratified by age. One-way ANOVA test was used to detect significant differences between countries and Student's t-tests were used to assess the differences between waves. RESULTS: Respectively for the US, Sweden, and Norway, mean EQ-5D-5L utilities were 0.822, 0.768, and 0.808 in April 2020 (p < 0.001); 0.823, 0.783, and 0.777 in January 2021 (p < 0.001); mean EQ-VAS scores were 0.746, 0.687, and 0.692 in April 2020 (p < 0.001), 0.764, 0.682, and 0.678 in January 2021 (p < 0.001). For both waves, EQ-5D-5L utilities and EQ-VAS scores in the US remained higher than both Sweden and Norway (p < 0.001). Norwegians reported considerably lowered HRQoL over time (p < 0.01). Self-reported problems with anxiety/depression were highest for the US and Sweden, while Norwegians reported most problems with pain/discomfort, followed by anxiety/depression. The population QALYs increased in the US and Sweden, but decreased in Norway. CONCLUSIONS: In the first year of the pandemic, a rebound in HRQoL was observed in the US, but not in Sweden or Norway. Mental health issues during the pandemic warrant a major public health concern across all 3 countries.
RESUMO
Background: Clinical Impression of Severity Index for Parkinson's Disease (CISI-PD) is a simple tool that can easily be used in clinical practice. Few studies have investigated the relationship between health-related quality of life and the CISI-PD. Objective: To analyze the association of CISI-PD scores with those of generic (EQ-5D-5L) and Parkinson's disease (PD) disease-specific (Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-8 [PDQ-8]) health-related quality of life assessments. Methods: Persons with idiopathic PD in the Swedish Parkinson's Disease registry with simultaneous registrations of CISI-PD and EQ-5D-5L and/or PDQ-8 were included. Correlations with EQ-5D dimensions were analyzed. The relationships between the CISI-PD, EQ-5D-5L, and PDQ-8 were estimated by linear mixed models with random intercept. Results: In the Swedish Parkinson's Disease registry, 3511 registrations, among 2168 persons, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The dimensions self-care, mobility, and usual activities correlated moderately with the CISI-PD (r s = 0.60, r s = 0.54, r s = 0.57). Weak correlations were found for anxiety/depression and pain/discomfort (r s = 0.39, r s = 0.29) (P values < 0.001). The fitted model included the CISI-PD, age, sex, and time since diagnosis. The CISI-PD had a statistically significant impact on the EQ-5D and PDQ-8 (P values < 0.001). Conclusions: The CISI-PD provides a moderate correlation with the EQ-5D and could possibly be useful as a basis for defining health states in future health economic models and serving as outcomes in managed entry agreements. Nonetheless, the limitation of capturing nonmotor symptoms of the disease remains a shortcoming of clinical instruments, including the CISI-PD.
RESUMO
Background: Physiotherapy is usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. If pain persists, an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon is indicated, but many disorders for which patients are placed on orthopaedic waiting lists cannot be treated in an orthopaedic clinic. Specialised manual therapy, although not mainstream, can be an effective alternative to orthopaedic care, although its cost-effectiveness beyond 12 months is unknown. Objectives: To perform an 8-year follow-up of the quality of life and costs of specialised manual therapy versus standard orthopaedic care for working-age patients with common nonsurgical musculoskeletal disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons and to develop a health economic model. Design: Cost-effectiveness study using Markov modelling. Methods: The index group of a previously published pragmatic randomised controlled trial received a maximum of five treatment sessions of specialised manual therapy, while the control group received orthopaedic 'care as usual'. At 3, 6, 12 and 96 months, Health-Related Quality of Life and costs were measured with Short Form Health Survey 36, Short Form Health Survey 6D and Diagnostic Related Groups. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, a Markov model was developed and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Overall, 95% (n = 75) of the participants completed the 8-year follow-up. Recovery rates during the first 3 months ('per protocol') in the index and control group were 69% and 58%, respectively. The index group had 0.159 more gains in quality-adjusted life years and cost 40,270 SEK (4027) less per patient over 8 years. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the main results. Conclusion: Specialised manual therapy dominated standard care after 8 years. The results of this small but very first study are promising; therefore, further exploration within other health care professions, clinics and/or countries is required. Our study raises questions about the triaging of orthopaedic outpatients, cost-effectiveness and resource allocation. Registration: Not applicable per the information provided by ClinicalTrials.gov. Plain Language Summary: Specialised manual therapy is more cost-effective than 'care as usual' for working-age patients referred to an orthopaedist. This study provides an 8-year follow-up of the cost effects and quality of life of a previously published trial. Why was this study conducted? The standard care for musculoskeletal pain consists of exercises with a physiotherapist in primary care. If the pain persists, a referral to an orthopaedic clinic is often made. Many of these referrals are inappropriate because they concern pain from muscles and joints that do not benefit from surgery or the resources available in an orthopaedic clinic. There is a gap in competence and treatment between primary and specialised care that is costly, time- and resource-consuming and causes prolonged patient suffering. Although specialised manual therapy (MT) is effective, its use is not mainstream. Costs and effects after more than 12 months of treatment that may shorten waiting lists have never been evaluated. What did the researchers do? Quality of life and costs were compared in 75 patients with nonsurgical disorders referred to orthopaedic surgeons at 8 years after treatment with specialised MT or standard orthopaedic care. A health economics model for the probability of recovery was also developed and tested. What did the researchers find? Compared with the control group, the study participants treated with specialised MT had a better quality of life, required fewer health care interventions, underwent less surgery, incurred significantly lower costs and demonstrated an increased probability of recovery. What do these findings mean? It seems probable that using specialised MT for an old, well-known structural problem may yield better treatment effects at a significantly lower cost. Our study findings suggest that policy recommendations should focus on costs and effects rather than resource utilisation alone. The study is small and requires expansion using its economic health model.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: We sought to synthesize published empirical studies that elicited and characterized societal valuations of orphan drugs and the attributes that may drive different valuations for orphan drugs versus other treatments. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to November 2, 2020. Search terms covered societal preferences and attributes of orphan drugs (e.g., disease prevalence, severity, burden, unmet needs, and benefits). RESULTS: We identified 38 eligible publications: 33 societal preference studies and 5 reviews discussing societal valuations and attributes of orphan drugs. Most publications suggested that a majority of respondents favored allocating funds to more prevalent diseases. However, trade-off studies and discrete-choice experiments found that survey participants chose to allocate resources to orphan drugs even when the cost per unit of health benefit was greater than for therapies for more prevalent diseases. Overall, 19 of 27 studies assessing severity in treatment valuation revealed that respondents prioritized patients with severe diseases over those with milder ones for equal health benefits. Members of the general public tended to prefer treatments for diseases with no alternative or when existing alternatives had limited efficacy over diseases with clear therapeutic alternatives. There was evidence that individuals preferred sharing resources, so no patient was left without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our SLR indicates the general public typically attaches greater value to orphan drugs than to other treatments for common diseases. This is not because of rarity per se, but primarily because of disease severity and lack of therapeutic alternatives typically associated with rare diseases.
Orphan drugs are drugs serving a substantial public health need by treating life-threatening or chronically debilitating medical conditions affecting a small number of people with very high unmet needs. We reviewed 38 published studies looking at drug characteristics that may cause people to value orphan drugs differently versus treatments for common conditions. Most people surveyed in these publications favored health care funds going to more prevalent diseases. However, some people preferred funding orphan drugs even when the cost versus health benefit was higher compared with treatments for more common diseases. The majority of studies that investigated the impact of disease severity on the valuation of treatments found that people prioritized patients with severe disease over those with milder disease, for the same extent of health benefit. People also preferred funding treatments for diseases that have no alternative treatments, or treatments with limited benefits, over treatments for diseases with many treatments or more effective treatments. We also found evidence of a societal preference for shared resources, meaning that no patient would be left without treatment, including those who receive limited benefits from health care resources, even if this does not lead to the maximization of health benefits across society. In conclusion, our literature review indicated that the general public attaches greater value to orphan drugs versus treatments for more common diseases, not because of rarity per se, but largely because the rare diseases treated by orphan drugs are often severe and have no or few treatment options.
Assuntos
Produção de Droga sem Interesse Comercial , Doenças Raras , Humanos , Doenças Raras/tratamento farmacológico , Inquéritos e Questionários , Gravidade do Paciente , Análise Custo-BenefícioRESUMO
The traditional health economic analysis is limited to estimating the impact on the treated patient. As vaccines are usually aimed at preventing infectious diseases, they may be associated with additional values for the non-treated wider population. Although there are valid reasons for treating vaccines differently, and a wide support for a broader perspective in the literature (i.e., beyond the net costs and health gain related to the outcome for the vaccinated individual), it remains unclear to what extent the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies accept and apply a broader perspective. The purpose of this study is to examine and discuss what type of consequences are relevant for a health economic analysis of vaccines and which consequences are considered by HTA agencies. The study includes a strategic review of literature and HTA decisions in Sweden and other countries, online round-table discussions with stakeholders in Sweden, and a basic estimation of the value of a COVID-19 vaccination in Sweden. The study shows that, other than herd effect, broader economic consequences for the population are generally not included in the economic evaluation of vaccines. Also, all economic consequences for the treated patient (production loss) and caregiver (health loss) are not always considered. The perspective chosen can have a major impact on the outcome of the analysis. A vaccine for COVID-19 is estimated to provide a value of 744-956 per dose when using a societal perspective including broader consequences for the population. Providing a complete and appropriate picture of the value of vaccination is of importance to allocate resources efficiently, to provide incentives for vaccine development, and to show the cost of delaying decisions to implement a new vaccine.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Saúde da População , Vacinas , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , VacinaçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain. METHODS: The two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .
Assuntos
Dor Lombar , Manipulação da Coluna , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Dor Lombar/terapia , Cervicalgia/terapia , Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
Phenylketonuria (PKU) is a metabolic disorder leading to a deficiency in the metabolism of phenylalanine (Phe). Elevated Phe levels in the blood, tissue and brain may lead to emotional, cognitive, and physical symptoms in adults. To control blood Phe levels, most individuals with PKU need to follow a strict, life-long Phe-restricted diet. The main objective of this study was to estimate the impact of PKU-related disease symptoms and dietary restrictions on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study was designed as a web-based survey using the methods of Time Trade-Off (TTO) and Discrete Choice Experiment with duration (DCETTO) in a survey of the Swedish general population and population with PKU. Data were collected using questionnaires for TTO diet (n = 509), TTO symptoms (n = 507), and DCETTO (n = 1117). The disutility of diet restrictions ranged from 0.050 for a partially restricted diet without medical food to 0.193 for a fully restricted diet with medical food in the TTO (DCE: 0.043-0.108). The disutility of experiencing symptoms (emotional, cognitive and physical) ranged from 0.148 for mild symptoms to 0.593 for severe symptoms in the TTO (DCE: 0.122-1.522). The study shows that both diet and symptoms have a significant negative impact on HRQoL in PKU and that utility estimates are largely consistent across methods and samples.
Assuntos
Fenilcetonúrias , Qualidade de Vida , Adulto , Dieta , Humanos , Fenilalanina , Fenilcetonúrias/psicologia , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Transformative cell and gene therapies have now launched worldwide, and many potentially curative cell and gene therapies are in development, offering the prospect of significant health gains for patients. Access to these therapies depend on decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations. We sought to describe the emerging cell and gene therapies market access landscape by analyzing 17 US commercial payer medical policies, and HTA reports from five European countries and Canada. We found that some US health plans applied coverage restrictions more often than others (four plans applied restrictions in all decisions, while four plans applied restrictions in <30% of decisions). The European and Canadian HTA bodies recommend access to fewer therapies than US health plans, reflecting a more stringent approach in the context of limited evidence and high scientific uncertainty that is commonly associated with these treatments. Our findings suggest that patient access to approved cell and gene therapies is restricted in all regions studied, though the nature of these restrictions differs between US health plans and the European/Canada HTA recommendations. Payers, HTA groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders should collaborate to more clearly define the "uncertainties" and develop market access policies that balance benefits of early access with ongoing data collection to close evidence gaps over time.
Assuntos
Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Canadá , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Estados UnidosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden published the national guidelines for Parkinson's Disease 2016. The aim of this study was to summarize this evidence review and development of the guidelines, focusing on the economic evaluation of device-aided therapies (deep brain stimulation, pump-based infusion of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel or apomorphine) for Parkinson's disease, and the rate of implementation after 3 years in Sweden. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The evidence review underlying the guidelines-including systematic literature searches of clinical and economic evidence, model-based economic evaluation, and formal analysis and guideline development-was examined, condensed, and translated. The impact of the guidelines was assessed with treatment use statistics from 2009 to 2019. RESULTS: All device-aided therapies were assigned high priority. Based on a relatively low proportion of device-aided therapies (30%) in Parkinson's disease, a 5-year increase of 500 patients was recommended. This was estimated to reduce total costs by SEK 14 million (1.7 million). Follow-up data found an increase of 217 patients between 2017 and 2019, following the same trend as before the guidelines. CONCLUSION: Three years after the guidelines were published, the use of device-aided therapies has increased in Sweden, albeit not in pace with recommendations. One reason for slow implementation may be poor incentivization related to budget silos in which the costs for device-aided therapies are borne by the regions but the cost offsets (eg, reduced need for home care) are reaped by local stakeholders.
Assuntos
Antiparkinsonianos/administração & dosagem , Estimulação Encefálica Profunda/métodos , Doença de Parkinson/terapia , Antiparkinsonianos/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Estimulação Encefálica Profunda/economia , Géis/uso terapêutico , Humanos , SuéciaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is predicted to become the second most common cause of cancer-related death by 2030. The objective of this study was to estimate the economic burden of pancreatic cancer for the years 2018 and 2030 based on changing demographics and incidence rates in Sweden. METHOD: The incidence of pancreatic cancer in Sweden and additional relevant data were obtained from official statistics. A linear regression model and the mean incidence rates 2008-2018 were applied to calculate the incidence in 2030. An economic model based on the human capital method was created to calculate the indirect cost of pancreatic cancer in 2018 and 2030. Costs associated with surgery, radiology, oncology, and palliative care constituted the direct costs. A sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The incidence of pancreatic cancer in Sweden in the year 2018 was 1352 patients and projected to between 1554 (+15%) and 1736 (+28%) in 2030. The total cost was calculated to 125 million in 2018 and between 210 million (+68%) and 225 million (+80%) in 2030. The indirect cost in the ≤65-year-old group was 328,344 in 2018 and between 380,738 and 382,109 per individual in 2030. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of pancreatic cancer is expected to increase in Sweden by 2030 due to the increasing incidence of the disease and changing demographics. Pancreatic cancer is a growing health care problem in urgent need of advancements in prevention, early detection, treatment, and control of the disease.
Assuntos
Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Idoso , Previsões , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/epidemiologia , Suécia/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Standard biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis is an unpleasant and sometimes painful procedure with a detection rate as low as around 50%. Consequently, an accurate blood-based test would be highly desirable to improve the predictive accuracy. However, the clinical value of a new blood test for diagnosing prostate cancer depends on its sensitivity and specificity, in relation to the selected target population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to investigate the health-economic value of introducing a new and more accurate diagnostic blood-based test to identify men in need of a biopsy to diagnose prostate cancer. METHOD: We developed a Discrete Event Simulation Model with outputs including number of biopsies, cancer diagnosis, treatments and prostate cancer deaths. The analysis was performed from a health care perspective. It used epidemiologic data, treatment patterns, and health care costs from the Swedish region Skåne (population of 1.3 million). A 90% sensitivity and specificity of the new test was assumed. RESULTS: Among 31,250 men, age 50-69 years, 16.4% had a PSA between 3.0 and 9.9 µg/L and 28.9% a PSA of 2.0-9.9 µg/L. Testing men with PSA 3.0-9.9 µg/L, as in current clinical practice, decreased the number of biopsies by 3595, detected 61 more cancers, resulting in and two more fatalities and subsequently a loss of 14 QALYs. Cost offsets could justify a test value of SEK 4996. Testing a larger population, PSA 2.0-9.9 µg/L prevented 6 deaths, added 50 QALYs, and could justify a value of the test of SEK 5165, given a value of health of SEK 500,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: A new blood-based test for prostate cancer has a significant potential to reduce the number of biopsies needed, resulting in reduced health care costs and improve patient care.
RESUMO
Objective: To provide recommendations for addressing previously identified key challenges in health economic evaluations of Gene Replacement Therapies (GRTs), including: 1) the assessment of clinical effectiveness; 2) the valuation of health outcomes; 3) the time horizon and extrapolation of effects beyond trial duration; 4) the estimation of costs; 5) the selection of appropriate discount rates; 6) the incorporation of broader elements of value; and 7) affordability. Methods: A literature review on economic evaluations of GRT was performed. Interviews were conducted with 8 European and US health economic experts with experience in evaluations of GRT. Targeted literature reviews were conducted to investigate further potential solutions to specific challenges. Recommendations: Experts agreed on factors to be considered to ensure the acceptability of historical cohorts by HTA bodies. Existing prospective registries or, if not available, retrospective registries, may be used to analyse different disease trajectories and inform extrapolations. The importance of expert opinion due to limited data was acknowledged. Expert opinion should be obtained using structured elicitation techniques. Broader elements of value, beyond health gains directly related to treatment, can be considered through the application of a factor to inflate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or a higher cost-effectiveness threshold. Additionally, the use of cost-benefit analysis and saved young life equivalents (SAVE) were proposed as alternatives to QALYs for the valuations of outcomes of GRT as they can incorporate broader elements of value and avoid problems of eliciting utilities for paediatric diseases. Conclusions: While some of the limitations of economic evaluations of GRT are inherent to limited clinical data and lack of experience with these treatments, others may be addressed by methodological research to be conducted by health economists.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The new European Union (EU) Regulations on medical devices and on in vitro diagnostics provide manufacturers and Notified Bodies with new tools to improve pre-market and post-market clinical evidence generation especially for high-risk products but fail to indicate what type of clinical evidence is appropriate at each stage of the whole lifecycle of medical devices. In this paper we address: i) the appropriate level and timing of clinical evidence throughout the lifecycle of high-risk implantable medical devices; and ii) how the clinical evidence generation ecosystem could be adapted to optimize patient access. AREAS COVERED: The European regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) contexts are reviewed, in relation to the lifecycle of high-risk medical devices and clinical evidence generation recommended by international network or endorsed by regulatory and HTA agencies in different jurisdictions. EXPERT OPINION: Four stages are relevant for clinical evidence generation: i) pre-clinical, pre-market; ii) clinical, pre-market; iii) diffusion, post-market; and iv) obsolescence & replacement, post-market. Each stage has its own evaluation needs and specific studies are recommended to generate the appropriate evidence. Effective lifecycle planning requires anticipation of what evidence will be needed at each stage.
Assuntos
Equipamentos e Provisões , Próteses e Implantes , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Avaliação da Tecnologia BiomédicaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2014 managed entry agreements (MEA) between Swedish health care payers (county councils), the reimbursement authority (the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV)) and pharmaceutical companies were introduced to facilitate early and equal access to treatments. MEAs complement the value-based pricing system for out-patient drugs and enables stake-holders to negotiate risk-sharing agreements. AIM: The aim of the study was to review existing agreements, describe the type of uncertainty dealt with, and to analyze incentives created using the literature on performance-based reimbursement schemes in Sweden. METHOD: A document review of all agreements made in the period January 2015 to August 2019 was conducted, classifying agreements by the type of uncertainty dealt with. RESULTS: Agreements were made for 56 products during the studied time period (45 ongoing), mainly in the fields of hepatitis C (nâ¯=â¯10) and oncology (nâ¯=â¯14). Uncertainties addressed in ongoing agreements included size of treated population (10), treatment duration (13), and effectiveness (9). The mechanism for risk-sharing was limited to refunds based on patient numbers, duration or just flat-rate refunds. The estimated refund in 2018 was 50 % of total sales. DISCUSSION: This review show that the main driver behind risk sharing in Sweden so far have seem to be affordability rather than managing uncertainty.
Assuntos
Comércio , Indústria Farmacêutica , Custos e Análise de Custo , Custos de Medicamentos , Humanos , SuéciaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling, chronic neurological disease leading to severe headache episodes affecting 13.2% of the Swedish population. Migraine leads to an extensive socio-economic burden in terms of healthcare costs, reduced workforce and quality of life (QoL) but studies of the health-economic consequences in a Swedish context are lacking. The objective of this study is to map the health-economic consequences of migraine in a defined patient population in terms of healthcare consumption, production loss and QoL in Sweden. METHODS: The study is based on data from a web-based survey to members in the Swedish patients' association suffering from migraine. The survey was conducted in May 2018 and included people with migraine aged 18 years or older. The survey included questions on health resource consumption, lost production resulting from migraine-related absenteeism and presenteeism, and QoL as measured by the EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-5 L) and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6). The results are presented in yearly costs per patient and losses in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The results are based on answers from 630 individuals with migraine and are presented by number of migraine days per month. The total cost per patient and year increased with the number of migraine days per month (p < 0.001) and varied between approximately 5000 for those with less than 3 migraine days per month and 24,000 per year for those with 21-28 migraine days per month. Production loss represented the main part of the costs, approximately 80%. The average loss in QALYs per year also increased with the monthly number of migraine days (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Migraine leads to significant societal costs and loss of quality of life. There appears to be an unmet need and a potential for both cost savings and QoL benefits connected with a reduction in the number of migraine days.
Assuntos
Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/epidemiologia , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Absenteísmo , Adulto , Idoso , Doença Crônica , Feminino , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde/tendências , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/diagnóstico , Suécia/epidemiologiaRESUMO
The value of a statistical life (VSL) is a widely used measure for the value of mortality risk reduction. As VSL should reflect preferences and attitudes to risk, there are reasons to believe that it varies depending on the type of risk involved. It has been argued that cancer should be considered a "dread disease," which supports the use of a "cancer premium." The objective of this study is to investigate the existence of a cancer premium (for pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma) in relation to road traffic accidents, sudden cardiac arrest, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Data were collected from 500 individuals in the Swedish general population of 50-74-year olds using a web-based questionnaire. Preferences were elicited using the contingent valuation method, and a split-sample design was applied to test scale sensitivity. VSL differs significantly between contexts, being highest for ALS and lowest for road traffic accidents. A premium (92-113%) for cancer was found in relation to road traffic accidents. The premium was higher for cancer with a shorter time from diagnosis to death. A premium was also found for sudden cardiac arrest (73%) and ALS (118%) in relation to road traffic accidents. Eliminating risk was associated with a premium of around 20%. This study provides additional evidence that there exist a dread premium and risk elimination premium. These factors should be considered when searching for an appropriate value for economic evaluation and health technology assessment.
Assuntos
Análise Atuarial , Medição de Risco , Valor da Vida , Acidentes de Trânsito/mortalidade , Idoso , Esclerose Lateral Amiotrófica/mortalidade , Feminino , Parada Cardíaca/mortalidade , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mieloma Múltiplo/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (BD-IPMN) presents a clinical conundrum. Rigorous long-term surveillance or surgical resection is recommended. The economic consequences of the management have not been fully investigated. METHODS: A Markov decision model compared 4 strategies for low-risk BD-IPMN: I = upfront total pancreatectomy, II = upfront partial pancreatectomy, III = initial surveillance, IV = watchful waiting. Surveillance was based on the Swedish Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer. Probabilities and costs were obtained from the participating unit and from the scientific literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed by varying relevant parameters. Survival was reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Strategy III was the most cost-effective strategy with an ICER of 31 682 compared to strategy IV. Strategy I was the most expensive but yielded the best QALY (9.32). Total number of years, annual risk of pancreatic cancer and annual risk of a low-risk BD-IPMN turning into a high-risk lesion had the greatest impact in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Initial surveillance seems to be the most cost-effective strategy in the management of low-risk asymptomatic BD-IPMN. However, the possibility of personalized approaches remains to be investigated.
Assuntos
Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/economia , Pancreatectomia/economia , Neoplasias Intraductais Pancreáticas/economia , Neoplasias Intraductais Pancreáticas/terapia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/economia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Conduta Expectante/economia , Redução de Custos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Cadeias de Markov , Modelos Econômicos , Pancreatectomia/efeitos adversos , Pancreatectomia/mortalidade , Neoplasias Intraductais Pancreáticas/mortalidade , Neoplasias Intraductais Pancreáticas/patologia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patologia , Qualidade de Vida , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Many pharmaceuticals are effective in multiple indications and the degree of effectiveness may differ. A product-based pricing and reimbursement system with a single price per product is insufficient to reflect the variable values between different indications. The objective of this article is to present examples of actual pricing and reimbursement decisions using current value-based pricing in Sweden and to discuss their implications and possible solutions. The value of several cancer drugs was estimated for various indications based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 million SEK (EUR 104,000) per QALY gained. For some drugs, the estimated value was higher than the drug acquisition cost in several indications, whilst in others, the estimated value was lower than the drug acquisition cost. Drugs used in combination present a special case. If a drug prolongs survival and consequently also a continued use of the anchor drug, the combination use may not be cost effective even at a zero price. In a product-based pricing and reimbursement system, patients may not get access to drugs or access may be delayed and manufacturers may be discouraged to invest in future indications. To overcome these issues, there are several approaches to link price and value. One approach is a "weighted-average" price based on an average of the value across all indications. Another is "multi-indication pricing," which enables price differentiation between indications. However, there are several barriers for applying multi-indication pricing and reimbursement schemes. One barrier is the lack of existing administrative infrastructure to track patients' indications.