5096
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
Comments0