Pharmacoeconomics: theory and practice
№4, 2017, Vol.5
This publication discusses the problem of choosing a comparison technology for pharmacoeconomic analysis. The relevance of this issue stems from the fact that the pharmacoeconomic analysis is based on a comparative competitive approach and that the comparison technology sets the point of reference and determines the sensitivity of the assessment. Pharmacoeconomic assessment is most needed for innovative drugs. In this context, the choice of comparison technology predetermines the results of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of an innovative drug. The traditional approach used in choosing a comparison technology in a pharmacoeconomic analysis based on the evidence of medical use between the drug being investigated and the comparison technology has some limitations, especially when the drug of a new class is evaluated. In this case, the comparison technology often uses long-running medications, which are not comparable with the innovative drug, either in terms of efficiency (usually to a large extent) or at the cost of an innovative drug, which is often more high-priced. In these circumstances, the results of the pharmacoeconomic assessment of innovative drug will possibly be negative. The negative results may be a sign of not likely unacceptability of an innovative drug but the consequence of the incorrect choice of comparison technology, which sets the level of sensitivity of the pharmacoeconomic analysis, in which the innovation drug is known to be beyond its borders. For a solution to the situation, the authors suggest an alternative approach to the choice of comparison technology in the pharmacoeconomic analysis.
This paper is devoted to assessment of economic burden of excessive alcohol consumption in Russian Federation. In the course of analysis, we gathered data about direct costs of treatment of conditions, directly or indirectly caused by excessive alcohol consumption, and indirect costs. A total burden of excessive alcohol consumption is more than 547 billion rubles, which makes up to 0,68% of Russia’s GDP for the year 2015. Since 2010 the burden has decreased by nearly 100 billion rubles, and the decrease of burden in relative values from 1,98% to 0,68% of GDP, which gives the evidence of the effectiveness of the government policy in the sphere of alcohol consumption control.
The objectives of this study were to determine the most advantageous antiviral therapy option for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) (peginterferon alfa + ribavirin (PegIFN + RBV) 48 weeks (F0–F4), peginterferon alfa + simeprevir + ribavirin (PegIFN + SMV + RBV) 24 weeks (F0–F4), peginterferon alfa + sofosbuvir + ribavirin (PegIFN + SOF + RBV) 12 weeks (F0–F4), dasabuvir + ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/ paritaprevir/ritonavir) 12 weeks (F0–F3) and dasabuvir + ombitasvir/ paritaprevir/ritonavir + ribavirin (Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + RBV) 12 weeks (F4)) among treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients (HCV genotype 1) based on the comparison of cost-effectiveness ratios and economic outcomes (“budget impact” analysis) from implementing the treatment strategy PegIFN-α + SOF + RBV instead of PegIFN-α + RBV, PegIFN-α + SIM + RBV and Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir. Model-based pharmacoeconomic analysis has been conducted. The costeffectiveness analysis showed that independently of the former treatment experience of CHC (genotype 1) patients the combination PegIFN-α + SOF + RBV was a predominant regimen as compared to PegIFN-α + RBV and PegIFN-α + SMV + RBV. In the groups of patients without cirrhosis and with cirrhosis the highest QALY value was noted for Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/ paritaprevir/ritonavir and Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + RBV combinations, respectively. Also a smaller cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) relative to the two above regimens was noted for PegIFN-α + SOF + RBV. In the group of treatment-naive patients without cirrhosis incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) of Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir vs PegIFN-α + SOF + RBV was higher than willingness-to-pay threshold (WPT), whereas in the group of patients with cirrhosis ICERDasabuvir + Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + RBV vs PegIFN-α + SOF + RBV was lower than WPT. Using “budget impact” analysis it was shown that switching to PegIFN-α + SOF + RBV from PegIFN-α + RBV regimen will involve extra direct costs for antiviral treatment (AVT), but will lead to a reduction in medical aid costs to the patients not reaching SVR, patients with CHC complications and, as a consequence, will lead to a reduction in cumulative medical costs. Moreover, transition from PegIFN-α + SMV + RBV, Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ ritonavir and Dasabuvir + Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + RBV to PegIFN-α + SOF + RBV will lead to a reduction in both AVT costs and cumulative medical costs.