Selection of a comparison technology for pharmacoeconomic analysis of innovative drugs
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.
Скорее всего ваш браузер не поддерживает PDF и Adobe Reader, нажмите здесь, чтобы просмотреть PDF
Bibliography link: Yagudina R.I., Serpik V.G., Krylov A.B., Skulkova R.S. Selection of a comparison technology for pharmacoeconomic analysis of innovative drugs// Pharmacoeconomics: theory and practice. - 2017. - Vol.5, №4. - P.12-17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30809/phe.4.2017.3