RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To review recent studies reporting health care expenditures (budgetary impact) for orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in Europe and to contribute to our understanding of the cost drivers of nononcological OMPs by means of an empirical analysis in Germany. METHODS: A systematic search for relevant studies on rare diseases was conducted in PubMed and Embase (until December 2016). In addition, annual treatment costs of nononcological OMPs in Germany were analyzed with respect to five explanatory variables: total prevalence of disease, prevalence with added benefit, availability of alternative treatments for the same indication, extent/probability of treatment benefit, and evidence for a treatment effect on mortality. RESULTS: A total of nine studies with specific estimates of the budget impact of OMPs for a total of 11 countries were identified; one study addressed specifically ultrarare diseases. Annual per-capita spending for OMPs ranges from 1.32 in Latvia to 16 in France. Per-patient annual treatment costs vary between 27,811 and 1,647,627 in Germany. On the basis of the German data set, the regression analysis shows that log prevalence has a significant inverse relationship with log annual treatment cost. In this model, doubling the prevalence leads to a 43% decrease in annual treatment cost. CONCLUSIONS: Despite per-patient annual treatment costs ranging up to several hundreds of thousands of euros for some OMPs, per-capita spending for OMPs is relatively small. In this study an inverse relationship between prevalence and annual treatment costs was found.
Assuntos
Orçamentos , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Doenças Raras/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Raras/economia , Europa (Continente) , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Modelos Estatísticos , Produção de Droga sem Interesse Comercial/economiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In oncology clinical trials, crossover is used frequently but may lead to uncertainties regarding treatment effects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the handling of evidence from crossover trials by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). METHODS: For oncology medicines with early benefit assessments before January 2015, presence of crossover, clinical data, EMA requests for additional data, and G-BA benefit ratings/evidence levels were analyzed from manufacturers' dossiers, G-BA appraisals, European Public Assessment Reports, and original publications. RESULTS: Eleven of 21 benefit assessments included crossover trials. Significant intergroup differences (P < 0.05) in overall survival (OS) were noted in 7 of 11 trials with and 7 of 10 without crossover. For 6 of 11 medicines with crossover, these were demonstrated before crossover. Treatment effects generally worsened with increasing proportions of crossover. The EMA requested additional data more frequently if crossover was performed, particularly if no OS data were available before crossover. The G-BA granted a considerable benefit to 73% of medicines with crossover and 40% of those without. Evidence levels were intermediate for 50% and 75%, respectively. None of the medicines received the highest evidence level. CONCLUSIONS: In G-BA appraisals, oncology medicines with crossover received better additional benefit ratings, but were assigned lower evidence levels, than those without. The five medicines with crossover after progression were assigned lower evidence levels than the six medicines with crossover after demonstration of superior OS, indicating that the way in which crossover is implemented may be one factor influencing the assignment of evidence levels by the G-BA.
Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/métodos , Estudos Cross-Over , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Oncologia/métodos , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Aprovação de Drogas , Alemanha , Humanos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Projetos de Pesquisa , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Optional scientific advice (SA) for the early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals is offered by the German decision maker, the Federal Joint Committee (FJC). The aim of this study was to elicit manufacturers' experiences with the SA procedures offered by the FJC to date. METHODS: A preliminary survey on a small sample size was conducted. Subsequently, a questionnaire comprising eight items, which was developed on the basis of that survey, was used. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. RESULTS: The elicitation, including a sample of 25 percent of the completed advice, highlighted the following, regarding the process as well as to the content shortcomings of the SA procedures from an industrial perspective: inconsistencies, FJC's lack of expertise in conducting clinical trials, partially incomplete answers. and a low willingness of the FJC to engage in dialogue with industry were criticized. On the other hand, the majority of respondents expressed a positive attitude concerning unambiguousness, completeness, traceability, discussion atmosphere, and the protocol of the advice. Early SA, before pivotal trials start, showed a significantly higher completeness compared with late SA with respect to endpoints and study duration. Within 4 years the quality of FJC's propositions on some topics improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few statistically significant differences were detectable between early versus late SA. A positive trend in industry's perception of the SA can be observed over time. A more active involvement of additional stakeholders and the incorporation of procedural elements from other healthcare systems could improve the quality of the SA offered by the FJC.
Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas/organização & administração , Indústria Farmacêutica/organização & administração , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/organização & administração , Alemanha , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cost-of-illness (CoI) studies are important instruments for estimating the socioeconomic burden of specified diseases. CoI studies provide important information about the cost structure of a disease, the resulting research need, approaches to improve aspects of care and, monetary consequences from different perspectives. This information can be useful for healthcare research and health policy. Due to heterogeneity of available Cost-of-Illness studies, the working group 'Health Economics' of the German Network for Healthcare Research (DNVF) in accordance with the German Society for Health Economics (DGGÖ) developed an instrument for the planning, conduct and assessment of CoI studies. METHODS: The checklist was developed based on a systematic literature search of published national and international checklists as well as guidelines and recommendations for development and assessment of CoI studies and health economic evaluations. Structure and subject matter of the generic checklist was designed, approved and, finally, examined in a pretest by the working group. RESULTS: Based on the results of the literature search (n=2 454), 58 articles were used for the identification of relevant criteria for the checklist. With respect to the results of the pretest, 6 dimensions were included in the checklist: (i) general aspects, (ii) identification of resources, (iii) description and quantification of resource consumption, (iv) valuation of resources (v) analysis and presentation of results and (vi) discussion and conclusion. In total, the 6 dimensions were operationalized through 37 items. CONCLUSION: This checklist is an initial approach to improve transparency and understanding of CoI studies in terms of the extent, structure and development of the socioeconomic burden of diseases. The checklist supports the comparability of different studies and facilitates study conception.
Assuntos
Lista de Checagem , Economia Médica , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Análise Custo-Benefício , AlemanhaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In Germany, an arbitration board is setting reimbursement amounts for drug innovations when price negations between payers and manufacturers fail. OBJECTIVE: To empirically analyze all arbitrations since the reform of Germany's Act to Reorganize the Pharmaceuticals' Market in the Statutory Health Insurance System came into effect. METHODS: All available relevant documents up to January 2016 were screened and the identified contentious issues between the negotiation parties extracted. Reimbursement requests of both the negotiating parties and the arbitrations were transformed into a comparable format on the basis of defined daily doses and then contrasted among each other. RESULTS: In the given period, 16 arbitrations took place. The arbitration board is implementing the same criteria used in the negotiations between manufacturers and payers. Almost all arbitrations dealt with generic appropriate comparative therapies. Reimbursement amounts set by arbitration were on average 38.4% less than the mean of negotiation parties' requests (69.2% less than the manufacturers' requests). The corresponding prescription volumes were arranged rather centrally. All but one arbitration refer to a 1-year contract period. The arbitration board rarely decided on further technical contentious points. Hence, no heuristics referring to them were derivable. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence for a quasi-algorithmic approach of the arbitration board, even though it is legally determined that it has to decide while taking the peculiar conditions of each case into due consideration, including the characteristics of the respective therapeutic area. The balance of interests proved to be within a very narrow space albeit it concerns in principle discretionary decisions. Thus, the purpose of arbitration seems not to be achieved sufficiently.
Assuntos
Contratos/economia , Indústria Farmacêutica/economia , Reembolso de Seguro de Saúde/economia , Seguro de Serviços Farmacêuticos/economia , Negociação/métodos , Algoritmos , Comércio , Análise Custo-Benefício , Alemanha , HumanosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess a comprehensive multicomponent intervention against a low intensity intervention for promoting physical activity in chronic low back pain patients. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation and aftercare. SUBJECTS: A total of 412 patients with chronic low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent intervention (Movement Coaching) comprising of small group intervention (twice during inpatient rehabilitation), tailored telephone aftercare (twice after rehabilitation) and internet-based aftercare (web 2.0 platform) versus a low level intensity intervention (two general presentations on physical activity, download of the presentations). MAIN MEASURES: Physical activity was measured using a questionnaire. Primary outcome was total physical activity; secondary outcomes were setting specific physical activity (transport, workplace, leisure time) and pain. Comparative group differences were evaluated six months after inpatient rehabilitation. RESULTS: At six months follow-up, 92 participants in Movement Coaching (46 %) and 100 participants in the control group (47 %) completed the postal follow-up questionnaire. No significant differences between the two groups could be shown in total physical activity (P = 0.30). In addition to this, workplace (P = 0.53), transport (P = 0.68) and leisure time physical activity (P = 0.21) and pain (P = 0.43) did not differ significantly between the two groups. In both groups, physical activity decreased during the six months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent intervention was no more effective than the low intensity intervention in promoting physical activity at six months follow-up. The decrease in physical activity in both groups is an unexpected outcome of the study and indicates the need for further research.
Assuntos
Assistência ao Convalescente/métodos , Dor Crônica/reabilitação , Exercício Físico , Dor Lombar/reabilitação , Adulto , Feminino , Seguimentos , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Tutoria , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Physical restraints such as bedrails and belts are regularly applied in German nursing homes despite clear evidence showing their lack of effectiveness and safety. In a cluster-randomised controlled trial, the efficacy and safety of a guideline-based multicomponent intervention programme has been proven. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of two different versions of the original intervention in nursing home residents in four different regions throughout Germany. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups, i.e. (1) the updated original multicomponent intervention programme and (2) the concise version of the updated programme, with a control group receiving optimised usual care. The first intervention group receives an educational programme for all nurses, additional training and structured support for nominated key nurses, printed study material and other supportive material. In the second intervention group, nurses do not receive education as part of the intervention, but may be trained by nominated key nurses who have received a short train-the-trainer module. All other components are similar to the first intervention group. The control group receives the printed study material only. Overall, 120 nursing homes including approximately 10,800 residents will be recruited and randomly assigned to one of the three groups. The primary outcome is defined as the proportion of residents with at least one physical restraint after 12 months follow-up. The use of physical restraints will be assessed by direct observation. Secondary outcomes are the residents' quality of life and safety parameters, e.g. falls and fall-related fractures. In addition, comprehensive process and economic evaluations will be performed. CONCLUSIONS: We expect a clinically relevant reduction in the proportion of residents with physical restraints. It is also expected that the process outcomes of this trial will enrich the knowledge about facilitators and barriers for the implementation of the multicomponent intervention programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02341898.
Assuntos
Acidentes por Quedas/prevenção & controle , Fraturas Ósseas , Pessoal de Saúde , Instituição de Longa Permanência para Idosos , Casas de Saúde , Qualidade de Vida , Restrição Física , Desenvolvimento de Pessoal/métodos , Adulto , Análise por Conglomerados , Feminino , Fraturas Ósseas/etiologia , Fraturas Ósseas/prevenção & controle , Alemanha , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Pessoal de Saúde/educação , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Humanos , Masculino , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Projetos de Pesquisa , Restrição Física/efeitos adversos , Restrição Física/métodos , Restrição Física/psicologia , Materiais de EnsinoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To analyze how ophthalmic drugs fared in the early benefit assessment (EBA) after its introduction in Germany up to 2020 and to quantify its impact on their negotiated prices. METHODS: Relevant documents were screened and essential content on added benefit outcomes and the underlying evidence was extracted next to pricing information. In addition to descriptive statistics, cross-stakeholder analyses and agreement statistics were implemented. RESULTS: Thirteen completed EBA were identified involving eight drugs. Only four drugs (30.8%) received an added benefit. The OR for no added benefit of ophthalmic drugs versus all other drugs was 2.971 (0.902-9.781). The agreement between manufacturers' claims and decision-maker appraisals is fair (kappa 0.435). In all cases, evidence was derived for RCTs, but for different reasons, not all of them allowed direct comparisons with the comparator as defined by the decision-maker. The negotiated rebates on manufacturer's selling prices varied from 6.8% up to 47.4%. Nevertheless, the rebates for ophthalmic drugs (median 14.5%) were lower than those for all negotiated drugs (median 24%). CONCLUSION: Over the past decade, the EBA of ophthalmic drugs was not necessarily a success story, but in most of the cases, the drugs were successful in the market.
Assuntos
Custos de Medicamentos , Custos e Análise de Custo , Alemanha , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patient involvement is widely acknowledged to be a valuable component in health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare decision making. However, quantitative approaches to ascertain patients' preferences for treatment endpoints are not yet established. The objective of this study is to introduce the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a preference elicitation method in HTA. Based on a systematic literature review on the use of AHP in health care in 2009, the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) initiated an AHP study related to its HTA work in 2010. METHODS: The AHP study included two AHP workshops, one with twelve patients and one with seven healthcare professionals. In these workshops, both patients and professionals rated their preferences with respect to the importance of different endpoints of antidepressant treatment by a pairwise comparison of individual endpoints. These comparisons were performed and evaluated by the AHP method and relative weights were generated for each endpoint. RESULTS: The AHP study indicates that AHP is a well-structured technique whose cognitive demands were well handled by patients and professionals. The two groups rated some of the included endpoints of antidepressant treatment differently. For both groups, however, the same six of the eleven endpoints analyzed accounted for more than 80 percent of the total weight. CONCLUSIONS: AHP can be used in HTA to give a quantitative dimension to patients' preferences for treatment endpoints. Preference elicitation could provide important information at various stages of HTA and challenge opinions on the importance of endpoints.
Assuntos
Participação do Paciente/métodos , Preferência do Paciente , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/organização & administração , Análise Custo-Benefício , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Transtorno Depressivo Maior/terapia , Alemanha , Humanos , Qualidade de Vida , Projetos de PesquisaRESUMO
Objective: Due to the impact of the Federal Joint Committee's (FJC) appraisal on following price negotiations, it is crucial to understand the underlying reasons of failure in early benefit assessment (EBA) of medicinal products in Germany. Methods: Medicinal products for which no added benefit was granted, the underlying reasons given by the FJC were extracted and grouped into respective categories according to predefined working definitions. Several reasons may hold for one subgroup. Furthermore, binomial proportion analysis was performed to gather proportions and their precision for each therapeutic area regarding possible failure. Results: 293/427 subgroups did not receive an added benefit. For 265/293 the following main formal reasons were stated: deviation of label to the pivotal studies (59%), wrong comparator (20.5%), and methodological deficiencies of indirect comparisons (12.3%). The proportion of failure in EBA is heterogeneous and therapeutic area depending (p = 0.0005). For most of the therapeutic areas, the confidence intervals of binomial proportions include 50%. Conclusion: Various different reasons led to the failure of EBAs in the past. Despite different objectives, a better alignment between the requirements and methods in the marketing authorization procedure and the EBA might facilitate the design of pivotal studies, which may be useful in both procedures.
Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas/legislação & jurisprudência , Projetos de Pesquisa , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Alemanha , HumanosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Increased health care use and costs have been reported in individuals with diabetes with comorbid depression. Knowledge regarding cost differences between individuals with diabetes alone and those with diabetes and diagnosed/undiagnosed depression is, however, scarce. We therefore compared use and costs for patients with diabetes and no depression and patients with diabetes and documented depression diagnosis or self-reported depression symptoms for several cost components, including mental health care costs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from a 2013 cross-sectional survey of randomly sampled members of a nationwide German statutory health insurance (SHI) provider with diabetes (n = 1,634) were linked individually with SHI data covering four quarters before and after the survey. Self-reported depression symptoms were assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, with depression diagnosis taken from SHI data. We analyzed health care use and costs, using regression analysis to calculate cost ratios (CRs) with adjustment for sociodemographic/socioeconomic factors and comorbidities for two groups: 1) those with no symptoms and no diagnosis and 2) those with symptoms or diagnosis. In our explorative subanalysis we analyzed subgroups with either symptoms or diagnosis separately. RESULTS: Annual mean total health care costs were higher for patients with comorbid depression (EUR 5,629 [95% CI 4,987-6,407]) than without (EUR 3,252 [2,976-3,675], the CR being 1.25 [1.14-1.36]). Regression analysis showed that excess costs were highly associated with comorbidities. Mental health care costs were very low for patients without depression (psychotherapy EUR 2; antidepressants EUR 4) and still relatively low for those with depression (psychotherapy EUR 111; antidepressants EUR 76). CONCLUSIONS: Costs were significantly higher when comorbid depression was present either as symptoms or diagnosed. Excess costs for mental health services were rather low.
Assuntos
Depressão , Diabetes Mellitus , Estudos Transversais , Depressão/epidemiologia , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiologia , Alemanha/epidemiologia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive health technology assessments (HTAs) include thorough reflections on ethical issues associated with health technologies, their use, and value-based decisions in the assessment process. As methods of information retrieval for effectiveness assessments are not applicable to information retrieval on ethical issues, a specific methodological approach is necessary. OBJECTIVES: In the absence of existing adapted methods, our objective was to develop a methodological approach for the systematic retrieval of information on ethical issues related to health technologies. METHOD AND RESULTS: A literature search was conducted to verify the non-existence of published comprehensive methodological approaches for the information retrieval on ethical issues for HTAs, and resulted in no hits. We, therefore, developed a step-by-step workflow following the workflow of information retrieval for effectiveness assessments: Step 1: Translation of the search question using the PICO scheme and additional components. Step 2: Concept building by modeling and linking search components. Step 3: Identification of synonyms in all relevant languages. Step 4: Selection of relevant information sources. Step 5: Design of search strategies for bibliographic databases. Step 6: Execution of search strategies and information seeking, including hand-searching. Step 7: Saving of retrieval results and standardized reporting of the process and results. Step 8: Final quality check and calculation of precision and recall. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic searching for information on ethical issues related to health technologies can be performed following the common retrieval workflow for effectiveness assessments, but should be performed separately applying adapted procedures and search terms on ethical issues relevant to the research question.
Assuntos
Bases de Dados Factuais , Armazenamento e Recuperação da Informação , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/ética , InternetRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Legislation introduced in 2011 in Germany has instituted an early benefit assessment of newly licensed pharmaceuticals with a subsequent price negotiation. For orphan drugs (ODs) a special legal framework applies, which accounts for the fact that ODs do not have to prove an added benefit over an appropriate comparative therapy previously determined by the decision maker. As, in addition, the content of negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and the payer is confidential, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing the negotiated prices of ODs. METHODS: Twelve hypotheses on factors influencing the negotiated OD price were derived based on the existing literature and framework agreement between payers and pharmaceutical unions according to German social legislation. Univariate analyses were applied to detect statistically significant correlations between annual therapeutic costs of ODs and the hypothesized factors. Bivariate analyses were used to determine confounding factors. In addition, a multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with backward selection was conducted. Finally, sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Thirty-five ODs were included in the analysis. The univariate analyses and subsequent sensitivity analyses validated five of the 12 hypotheses formulated. Univariate analyses suggest a statistically significant association between the OD price and the (i) therapeutic area; (ii) approval for pediatric care; (iii) treatment population size; (iv) cost of comparative therapies; and (v) European prices. The OLS regression identified European prices as the variable with the strongest association with the negotiated prices. CONCLUSION: We show that German OD pricing is a multivariate phenomenon. However, due to interdependencies, these results must be treated with caution.
Assuntos
Custos de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Produção de Droga sem Interesse Comercial/economia , Adulto , Criança , Custos e Análise de Custo , Indústria Farmacêutica/economia , Alemanha , Humanos , Análise dos Mínimos Quadrados , Pediatria/economia , Densidade DemográficaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: In Germany, all new, innovative medicines are subject to an early benefit assessment by the German Federal Joint Committee with subsequent price negotiation and optional arbitration. The purpose of this study was to identify drivers of negotiated (including arbitrated) prices of new, non-orphan innovative medicines in Germany. METHODS: The analysis considered all non-orphan drugs that underwent a benefit appraisal between January 2011 and June 2016, and displayed a reimbursement price in the German Drug Directory (Lauer-Taxe®) in November 2017. Negotiated annual treatment costs were analyzed with respect to 11 explanatory variables in regression models. RESULTS: The total sample included 106 non-orphan drugs. The analysis showed a significant and positive association of log-transformed negotiated annual treatment cost of new medicines with log-transformed annual treatment cost of its comparator(s), extent of added benefit, and log-transformed size of the target population. Analyzing the effects of specific endpoints instead of the overall added benefit revealed that the single endpoint with the largest impact on price is adverse events (AEs). Surprisingly, an increase in AEs significantly increased the price. Various subgroup and sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. The adjusted R squared for all models was above 80%. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis was able to confirm that variables whose consideration is mandated by law are, in fact, the key drivers of negotiated prices. Somewhat puzzling, the analysis also found an increase in AEs to move prices significantly upward.
Assuntos
Custos e Análise de Custo/estatística & dados numéricos , Custos de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Negociação , Alemanha , Humanos , Qualidade de VidaAssuntos
Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Reforma dos Serviços de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/economia , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/economia , Controle de Custos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Alemanha , Humanos , Medicamentos sob Prescrição/uso terapêutico , Mecanismo de ReembolsoRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The therapy of coronary heart disease (CHD) leads to an enormous economic burden on health-care systems. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous revascularizations with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are important treatment methods in CHD. The presented evaluation addresses cost efficacy of the use of DES versus CABG in CHD patients. METHODS: A health-economic model considering linear resource use was performed from a restricted societal perspective for time periods of 1 and 3 years. Because of the short time horizon discounting was not applied. The clinical assumptions for event rates at 1 and 3 years were derived from the ARTS-I study for CABG, and from the ARTS-II study for DES (sirolimus-eluting stents). Cost assumptions for the resources used were based on the German Diagnosis Related Groups 2007 (G-DRG-2007). The base case value was assumed to be 2,800 Euros, the average DES price 1,200 Euros, and the average DES use per patient 3.7. The average per-patient daily clopidogrel costs were assumed to be 2.57 Euros, and the duration of the clopidogrel therapy 12 months. Within the scope of sensitivity analyses, different model parameters were varied and the evaluation was tested for its robustness. RESULTS: The average costs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without DES were found to be 4,420 Euros, for CABG 12,840 Euros, and for DES intervention 8,860 Euros (Table 4). 1-year clopidogrel intake resulted in 938 Euros, the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction during follow-up in 3,989 Euros. The 1-year per-patient total costs after CABG were calculated to be 13,373 Euros and after DES 10,443 Euros, leading to a difference of 2,930 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). The 3-year per-patient total costs after CABG were estimated to be 13,630 Euros and after DES 10,905 Euros, showing a Rehabilitationsmasscost difference of 2,725 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). Changes in cost-weights of G-DRG-2007 for CABG and PCI, DES price and DES use per patient as well as in the duration of the clopidogrel therapy influenced the cost differences considerably; however, they did not reach a break-even point (Figures 2 and 3). Changes in the clinical follow-up assumptions showed a lower effect on the difference in total costs (Figures 2 and 3). CONCLUSION: The presented data, indicating a possible economic middle-term advantage of DES versus CABG, should be proven with clinical assumptions derived from randomized clinical trials.
Assuntos
Ponte de Artéria Coronária/economia , Doença das Coronárias/economia , Doença das Coronárias/terapia , Stents Farmacológicos/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Modelos Econômicos , Simulação por Computador , Análise Custo-Benefício , Alemanha/epidemiologia , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The decision matrix applied by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) for the quantification of added benefit within the early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany with its nine fields is quite complex and could be simplified. Furthermore, the method used by IQWiG is subject to manifold criticism: (1) it is implicitly weighting endpoints differently in its assessments favoring overall survival and, thereby, drug interventions in fatal diseases, (2) it is assuming that two pivotal trials are available when assessing the dossiers submitted by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, leading to far-reaching implications with respect to the quantification of added benefit, and, (3) it is basing the evaluation primarily on dichotomous endpoints and consequently leading to an information loss of usable evidence. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if criticism is justified and to propose methodological adaptations. METHODS: Analysis of the available dossiers up to the end of 2016 using statistical tests and multinomial logistic regression and simulations. RESULTS: It was shown that due to power losses, the method does not ensure that results are statistically valid and outcomes of the early benefit assessment may be compromised, though evidence on favoring overall survival remains unclear. Modifications, however, of the IQWiG method are possible to address the identified problems. CONCLUSION: By converging with the approach of approval authorities for confirmatory endpoints, the decision matrix could be simplified and the analysis method could be improved, to put the results on a more valid statistical basis.
Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/etiologia , Determinação de Ponto Final , Alemanha , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
The early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany and their preceding market authorization pursue different objectives. This is reflected by the inclusion of varying confirmatory endpoints within the evaluation of oncology drugs in early benefit assessment versus market authorization, with both relying on the same evidence. Data from assessments up to July 2015 are used to estimate the impact of explorative in comparison to confirmatory endpoints on market authorization and early benefit assessment by contrasting the benefit-risk ratio of EMA and the benefit-harm balance of the HTA jurisdiction. Agreement between market authorization and early benefit assessment is examined by Cohen's kappa (k). 21 of 41 assessments were considered in the analysis. Market authorization is more confirmatory than early benefit assessment because it includes a higher proportion of primary endpoints. The latter implies a primary endpoint to be relevant for the benefit-harm balance in only 67% of cases (0.078). Explorative mortality endpoints reached the highest agreement regarding the mutual consideration for the risk-benefit ratio and the benefit-harm balance (0.000). For explorative morbidity endpoints (-0.600), quality of life (-0.600) and side effects (-0.949) no agreement is ascertainable. To warrant a broader confirmatory basis for decisions supported by HTA, closer inter-institutional cooperation of approval authorities and HTA jurisdictions by means of reliable joint advice for manufacturers regarding endpoint definition would be favorable.