A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information. METHODS: Scientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden. RESULTS: Eight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days. CONCLUSIONS: Most analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.

Evaluation of antibody-based preventive alternatives for respiratory syncytial virus: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis framework and assessment of nirsevimab in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly infectious disease that poses a significant clinical and medical burden, as well as social disruption and economic costs, recognized by the World Health Organization as a public health issue. After several failed attempts to find preventive candidates (compounds, products, including vaccines), new alternatives might be available, one being nirsevimab, the first and only option approved for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season. The objective of this study was to develop a novel multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for RSV antibody-based preventive alternatives and to use it to assess the value of nirsevimab vs. placebo as a systematic immunization approach to prevent RSV in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain. METHODS: Based on a pre-established model called Vaccinex, an ad-hoc MCDA framework was created to reflect relevant attributes for the assessment of current and future antibody-based preventive measures for RSV. The estimated value of nirsevimab was obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 9 experts. A retest and three sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nirsevimab was evaluated through a novel framework with 26 criteria by the committee as a measure that adds value (positive final estimated value: 0.56 ± 0.11) to the current RSV scenario in Spain, by providing a high efficacy for prevention of neonates and infants. In addition, its implementation might generate cost savings in hospitalizations and to the healthcare system and increase the level of public health awareness among the general population, while reducing health inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, nirsevimab has been evaluated as a measure which adds value for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

Assessing the value contribution of bimekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a multidisciplinary reflective multi-criteria decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was proposed to surmount arbitrary clinical decisions in the field of biological therapies for psoriatic patients. At the same time, MCDA may further highlight the potential of bimekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, compared to placebo, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, and even ixekizumab and risankizumab. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The EVIDEM framework was adapted to reflect relevant criteria for the assessment. Estimated values were obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 12 experts. Consistency and replicability were evaluated through an alternative weighting method and a re-test. RESULTS: Bimekizumab was assessed by the committee as an intervention with a positive value contribution for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in comparison to any of the alternatives. The drug provides a substantial therapeutical benefits and improves the health results reported by the patients, as it combines a higher level of clearance, rapidity, and persistence with a similar safety and tolerability profile. CONCLUSIONS: Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, bimekizumab was evaluated as a drug with a high added value for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis when compared to six different alternatives.

The economic burden of pulmonary arterial hypertension in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) is a rare, debilitating, and potentially fatal disease. This study aims to quantify the economic burden of PAH in Spain. METHODS: The study was conducted from a societal perspective, including direct and indirect costs associated with incident and prevalent patients. Average annual costs per patient were estimated by multiplying the number of resources consumed by their unit cost, differentiating the functional class (FC) of the patient. Total annual costs per FC were also calculated, taking the 2020 prevalence and incidence ranges into account. An expert committee validated the information on resource consumption and provided primary information on pharmacological consumption. Unit costs were estimated using official tariffs and salaries in Spain. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the uncertainty of the model. RESULTS: The average annual total cost was estimated at €98,839 per prevalent patient (FC I-II: €65,233; FC III: €103,736; FC IV: €208,821), being €42,110 for incident patients (FC I-II: €25,666; FC III: €44,667; FC IV: €95,188). The total annual cost of PAH in Spain, taking into account a prevalence between 16.0 and 25.9 cases per million adult inhabitants (FC I-II 31.8%; FC III 61.3%; FC IV 6.9%) and an incidence of 3.7, was estimated at €67,891,405 to €106,131,626, depending on the prevalence considered. Direct healthcare costs accounted for 64% of the total cost, followed by indirect costs (24%), and direct non-healthcare costs (12%). The total costs associated with patients in FC I-II ranged between €14,161,651 and €22,193,954, while for patients in FC III costs ranged between €43,763,019 and €68,391,651, and for patients in FC IV between €9,966,735 and €15,546,021. In global terms, patients with the worst functional status (FC IV) account for only 6.9% of the adults suffering from PAH in Spain, but are responsible for 14.7% of the total costs. CONCLUSIONS: PAH places a considerable economic burden on patients and their families, the healthcare system, and society as a whole. Efforts must be made to improve the health and management of these patients since the early stages of the disease.