Overcoming challenges in the economic evaluation of interventions to optimise antibiotic use.

Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics, reducing our ability to treat infections and threatening to undermine modern health care. Optimising antibiotic use is a key element in tackling the problem. Traditional economic evaluation methods do not capture many of the benefits from improved antibiotic use and the potential impact on resistance. Not capturing these benefits is a major obstacle to optimising antibiotic use, as it fails to incentivise the development and use of interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and preserve their effectiveness (stewardship interventions). Estimates of the benefits of improving antibiotic use involve considerable uncertainty as they depend on the evolution of resistance and associated health outcomes and costs. Here we discuss how economic evaluation methods might be adapted, in the face of such uncertainties. We propose a threshold-based approach that estimates the minimum resistance-related costs that would need to be averted by an intervention to make it cost-effective. If it is probable that without the intervention costs will exceed the threshold then the intervention should be deemed cost-effective.

How can we optimise health technology assessment and reimbursement decisions to accelerate access to new cardiovascular medicines?

Regulatory approvals of, and subsequent access to, innovative cardiovascular medications have declined. How much of this decline relates to the final step of gaining reimbursement for new treatments is unknown. Payers and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies look beyond efficacy and safety to assess whether a new drug improves patient outcomes, quality of life, or satisfaction at a cost that is affordable compared to existing treatments. HTA bodies work within a limited healthcare budget, and this is one of the reasons why only half of newly approved drugs are accepted for reimbursement, or receive restricted or "optimised" recommendations from HTA bodies. All stakeholders have the common goal of facilitating access to safe, effective, and affordable treatments to appropriate patients. An important strategy to expedite this is providing optimal data. This is demonstrably facilitated by early (and ongoing) discussions between all stakeholders. Many countries have formal programmes to provide collaborative regulatory and HTA advice to developers. Other strategies include aligning regulatory and HTA processes, increasing use of real-world evidence, formally defining the decision-making process, and educating stakeholders on the criteria for positive decision making. Industry should focus on developing treatments for unmet medical needs, seek early engagement with HTA and regulatory bodies, improve methodologies for optimal price setting, develop internal systems to collaborate with national and international stakeholders, and conduct post-approval studies. Patient involvement in all stages of development, including HTA, is critical to capture the lived experience and priorities of those whose lives will be impacted by new treatment approvals.

Longitudinal medical resources and costs among type 2 diabetes patients participating in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS).

AIMS: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal.

In this editorial, we consider the vexing issue of 'unrelated future costs' (for example, the costs of caring for people with dementia or kidney failure after preventing their deaths from a heart attack). The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance is not to take such costs into account in technology appraisals. However, standard appraisal practice involves modelling the benefits of those unrelated technologies. We argue that there is a sound principled reason for including both the costs and benefits of unrelated care. Changing this practice would have material consequences for decisions about reimbursing particular technologies, and we urge future research to understand this better. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.