Search

Background and ObjectivesAbaloparatide (ABL) significantly increases bone mineral density in men with osteoporosis similar to what was reported in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost effectiveness of sequential treatment with ABL followed by alendronate (ALN) in men at high fracture risk was compared to relevant alternative treatments.MethodsA Markov-based microsimulation model based on a lifetime US healthcare decision maker perspective was developed to evaluate the cost (expressed in US$2021) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained of sequential ABL/ALN. Comparators were sequential treatment unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Discount rates of 3% were used. Consistent with practice guidelines, patients received 18 months of ABL or TPTD followed by ALN for 5 years, or 5 years of ALN monotherapy. Analyses were conducted in high-risk men aged over 50 years defined as having a bone mineral density T-score = 60 years.ConclusionsSequential therapy using ABL/ALN may be cost effective compared with generic ALN monotherapy in US men aged >= 50 years at high fracture risk, especially in those aged >= 60 years. Unbranded TPTD/ALN and no treatment were dominated interventions (less QALY, more costs) compared with ABL/ALN or ALN monotherapy.

Background New pharmacological therapies for the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have emerged in recent years. The high rates of CVD and the need for long-term treatment to decrease risk factors makes cost-effectiveness crucial for their successful long-term implementation. Objective This study assessed cost-effectiveness studies of novel pharmacological treatments (ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids [n-3 PUFAs], and the cardiovascular polypill) compared with standard care for the secondary prevention of CVD. Methods We searched seven databases and the reference list of selected literature reviews for eligible cost-effective analyses (CEA) published between January 2009 and January 2020 that evaluated the above novel treatments versus standard care. Two independent reviewers performed the screening and evaluation in accordance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Cost results were adapted to 2018 US dollars (US$) to facilitate comparisons between studies. Consideration of cost-effectiveness was based on the original study criteria. Results Thirty-two studies were included in this review, most of them adopting a healthcare perspective. Studies evaluating ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and n-3 PUFAs assessed their addition to standard care compared with standard care alone, while studies analysing the polypill evaluated the replacement of multiple monotherapies for a fixed-dose combination. Ten studies reported on ezetimibe, fifteen evaluated PCSK9 inhibitors, five focused on n-3 PUFAs and seven on the polypill. From a healthcare perspective, ezetimibe was cost effective in 62.5% of the studies (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] ranged from US$27,195 to US$204,140), n-3 PUFAs in 60% (ICERs from US$57,128 to US$139,082) and the cardiovascular polypill in 100% (ICERs from dominant to US$30,731) compared with standard care. Conversely, only 10% of the studies considered PCSK9 inhibitors cost effective compared with standard care from a healthcare perspective (ICERs ranged from US$231,119 to US$1,223,831). Additionally, ezetimibe was cost effective in 50% of the studies, PCSK9 inhibitors in 33% and the polypill in 50% of the studies adopting a societal perspective. The key model-related parameters predicting cost-effectiveness included drug cost, time horizon, and the baseline risk of cardiovascular events. Conclusions Based on current pricing and willingness-to-pay thresholds, most CEA studies considered ezetimibe, n-3 PUFAs and the polypill to be cost effective compared with standard care but not PCSK9 inhibitors for secondary prevention of CVD.

The most appropriate next step in depression treatment after the initial treatment fails is unclear. This study explores the suitability of the Markov decision process for optimizing sequential treatment decisions for depression. We conducted a formal comparison of a Markov decision process approach and mainstream state-transition models as used in health economic decision analysis to clarify differences in the model structure. We performed two reviews: the first to identify existing applications of the Markov decision process in the field of healthcare and the second to identify existing health economic models for depression. We then illustrated the application of a Markov decision process by reformulating an existing health economic model. This provided input for discussing the suitability of a Markov decision process for solving sequential treatment decisions in depression. The Markov decision process and state-transition models differed in terms of flexibility in modeling actions and rewards. In all, 23 applications of a Markov decision process within the context of somatic disease were included, 16 of which concerned sequential treatment decisions. Most existing health economic models relating to depression have a state-transition structure. The example application replicated the health economic model and enabled additional capacity to make dynamic comparisons of more interventions over time than was possible with traditional state-transition models. Markov decision processes have been successfully applied to address sequential treatment-decision problems, although the results have been published mostly in economics journals that are not related to healthcare. One advantage of a Markov decision process compared with state-transition models is that it allows extended action space: the possibility of making dynamic comparisons of different treatments over time. Within the context of depression, although existing state-transition models are too basic to evaluate sequential treatment decisions, the assumptions of a Markov decision process could be satisfied. The Markov decision process could therefore serve as a powerful model for optimizing sequential treatment in depression. This would require a sufficiently elaborate state-transition model at the cohort or patient level.

Background Men who have sex with men require special attention for human papillomavirus vaccination given elevated infection risks and the development of, in particular, anal cancer. Objective Our purpose was to review the cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for both currently vaccine-eligible and non-eligible individuals, particularly the men-who-have-sex-with-men population, and synthesize the available evidence. Methods We systematically searched for published articles in two main databases (PubMed and EMBASE). Screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using a validated instrument (Bias in Economic Evaluation, ECOBIAS). Methodological aspects, study results, and sensitivity analyses were extracted and synthesized to generate a consistent overview of the cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in the men-who-have-sex-with-men population. Results From 770 identified articles, four met the inclusion criteria. Across the studies, human papillomavirus vaccination showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominant to US$96,146 and US$14,000 to US$18,200 for tertiary prevention and primary prevention, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio seemed most sensitive to vaccine efficacy, vaccine costs, and the incidence of anal cancer in the selected target populations. Conclusion This review presents the human papillomavirus vaccine, both as a primary and adjuvant (tertiary) vaccination, as a potentially cost-effective strategy for preventing mainly-but not limited to only-anal cancer in men-who-have-sex-with-men populations.

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product's value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making.

In the current study, we propose an approach for selection of a model that is transferable to a specific decision-making context (in this case, the Netherlands), using the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objectives of this study were (a) to perform a systematic literature review to identify existing health economic evaluation models for economic evaluation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA; and (b) to test the appropriateness of a stepwise model-selection process. First, we searched Medline and Embase to identify relevant studies in the English language, published between 1 January 2002 and 31 August 2012. From the included studies, all unique models were identified. Second, we applied a multi-step approach to model selection. Models that did not meet all minimal methodological and structural requirements based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria were excluded. Next, models were assessed on the basis of their fit when transferred to the Dutch health care setting. The criteria for model fit were transferability factors, as published by Welte et al., after exclusion of those that were deemed transferable by simple adaptation. Finally, the remaining models underwent a general quality check using the Philips checklist. Models showing good fit and high quality were considered to be transferable to the Dutch health care setting, using simple adaptation. The systematic literature search identified 498 articles, which included 33 unique health economic evaluation models. Only six models passed the minimal methodological and structural requirements. Two of these models had an imperfect transferability fit to the Dutch health care setting, according to the Welte method. The remaining four models were, according to the Philips method, of good quality and were expected to be transferable by a simple adaptation. This study introduces a stepwise approach for selecting health economic evaluation models that are transferable by a simple adaptation. The approach seems feasible and can be applied in various therapeutic areas, provided that the minimal methodological and structural requirements are defined accordingly. Availability of health economic evaluation models coupled with structured model selection could improve the efficiency, quality and comparability of health economic research.

In the current study, we propose an approach for selection of a model that is transferable to a specific decision-making context (in this case, the Netherlands), using the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objectives of this study were (a) to perform a systematic literature review to identify existing health economic evaluation models for economic evaluation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA; and (b) to test the appropriateness of a stepwise model-selection process. First, we searched Medline and Embase to identify relevant studies in the English language, published between 1 January 2002 and 31 August 2012. From the included studies, all unique models were identified. Second, we applied a multi-step approach to model selection. Models that did not meet all minimal methodological and structural requirements based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria were excluded. Next, models were assessed on the basis of their fit when transferred to the Dutch health care setting. The criteria for model fit were transferability factors, as published by Welte et al., after exclusion of those that were deemed transferable by simple adaptation. Finally, the remaining models underwent a general quality check using the Philips checklist. Models showing good fit and high quality were considered to be transferable to the Dutch health care setting, using simple adaptation. The systematic literature search identified 498 articles, which included 33 unique health economic evaluation models. Only six models passed the minimal methodological and structural requirements. Two of these models had an imperfect transferability fit to the Dutch health care setting, according to the Welte method. The remaining four models were, according to the Philips method, of good quality and were expected to be transferable by a simple adaptation. This study introduces a stepwise approach for selecting health economic evaluation models that are transferable by a simple adaptation. The approach seems feasible and can be applied in various therapeutic areas, provided that the minimal methodological and structural requirements are defined accordingly. Availability of health economic evaluation models coupled with structured model selection could improve the efficiency, quality and comparability of health economic research.

Background Seasonal influenza infection is primarily caused by circulation of two influenza A strain subtypes and strains from two B lineages that vary each year. Trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) contains only one of the two B-lineage strains, resulting in mismatches between vaccine strains and the predominant circulating B lineage. Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) includes both B-lineage strains. The objective was to estimate the cost-utility of introducing QIV to replace TIV in Germany. Methods An individual-based dynamic transmission model (4Flu) using German data was used to provide realistic estimates of the impact of TIV and QIV on age-specific influenza infections. Cases were linked to health and economic outcomes to calculate the cost-utility of QIV versus TIV, from both a societal and payer perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.0 and 1.5 % respectively, with 2014 as the base year. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results Using QIV instead of TIV resulted in additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings from the societal perspective (i.e. it represents the dominant strategy) and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of €14,461 per QALY from a healthcare payer perspective. In all univariate analyses, QIV remained cost-effective (ICUR 98 and >99 % of the simulations from the societal and payer perspective, respectively. Conclusion This analysis suggests that QIV in Germany would provide additional health gains while being cost-saving to society or costing €14,461 per QALY gained from the healthcare payer perspective, compared with TIV. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0443-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product's value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making.

There has been a large increase in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) over the past decades, largely because of the increasing size of the population at risk. One of the major risk groups for IFIs are patients with haematological malignancies treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These IFIs are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Consequently, as the diagnosis of IFIs is difficult, antifungal prophylaxis is desirable in high-risk patients. Furthermore, as the economic impact of IFIs is also significant, it is important to assess the cost benefit and cost effectiveness of each prophylactic agent in order to aid decisions concerning which prophylactic agent provides the best value for limited healthcare resources. This article systematically reviews the available pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies. Furthermore, specific points of interest concerning economic analyses of antifungal prophylaxis are briefly discussed. Considering the available evidence, antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies seems to be an intervention with favourable cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential. Furthermore, recently introduced antifungal agents seem to be attractive alternatives to fluconazole from a pharmacoeconomic point of view. However, due to wide heterogeneity in patient characteristics, underlying diseases, hospital settings and study methods in the included economic studies, as well as the lack of 'head-to-head' trials, it is difficult to find clear evidence of the economic advantages of a single prophylactic agent. Furthermore, we show that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses are highly dependent on several crucial factors that influence the baseline IFI incidence rates and, therefore, differ per patient population or region.

There has been a large increase in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) over the past decades, largely because of the increasing size of the population at risk. One of the major risk groups for IFIs are patients with haematological malignancies treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These IFIs are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Consequently, as the diagnosis of IFIs is difficult, antifungal prophylaxis is desirable in high-risk patients. Furthermore, as the economic impact of IFIs is also significant, it is important to assess the cost benefit and cost effectiveness of each prophylactic agent in order to aid decisions concerning which prophylactic agent provides the best value for limited healthcare resources. This article systematically reviews the available pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies. Furthermore, specific points of interest concerning economic analyses of antifungal prophylaxis are briefly discussed. Considering the available evidence, antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies seems to be an intervention with favourable cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential. Furthermore, recently introduced antifungal agents seem to be attractive alternatives to fluconazole from a pharmacoeconomic point of view. However, due to wide heterogeneity in patient characteristics, underlying diseases, hospital settings and study methods in the included economic studies, as well as the lack of 'head-to-head' trials, it is difficult to find clear evidence of the economic advantages of a single prophylactic agent. Furthermore, we show that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses are highly dependent on several crucial factors that influence the baseline IFI incidence rates and, therefore, differ per patient population or region.

There has been a large increase in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) over the past decades, largely because of the increasing size of the population at risk. One of the major risk groups for IFIs are patients with haematological malignancies treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These IFIs are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Consequently, as the diagnosis of IFIs is difficult, antifungal prophylaxis is desirable in high-risk patients. Furthermore, as the economic impact of IFIs is also significant, it is important to assess the cost benefit and cost effectiveness of each prophylactic agent in order to aid decisions concerning which prophylactic agent provides the best value for limited healthcare resources. This article systematically reviews the available pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies. Furthermore, specific points of interest concerning economic analyses of antifungal prophylaxis are briefly discussed.Considering the available evidence, antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies seems to be an intervention with favourable cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential. Furthermore, recently introduced antifungal agents seem to be attractive alternatives to fluconazole from a pharmacoeconomic point of view. However, due to wide heterogeneity in patient characteristics, underlying diseases, hospital settings and study methods in the included economic studies, as well as the lack of 'head-to-head' trials, it is difficult to find clear evidence of the economic advantages of a single prophylactic agent. Furthermore, we show that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses are highly dependent on several crucial factors that influence the baseline IFI incidence rates and, therefore, differ per patient population or region.

Schizophrenia is a chronic disease characterized by periods of relative stability interrupted by acute episodes (or relapses). The course of the disease may vary considerably between patients. Patient histories show considerable inter- and even intra-individual variability. We provide a critical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of three modelling techniques that have been used in schizophrenia: decision trees, (cohort and micro-simulation) Markov models and discrete event simulation models. These modelling techniques are compared in terms of building time, data requirements, medico-scientific experience, simulation time, clinical representation, and their ability to deal with patient heterogeneity, the timing of events, prior events, patient interaction, interaction between covariates and variability (first-order uncertainty). We note that, depending on the research question, the optimal modelling approach should be selected based on the expected differences between the comparators, the number of co-variates, the number of patient subgroups, the interactions between co-variates, and simulation time. Finally, it is argued that in case micro-simulation is required for the cost-effectiveness analysis of schizophrenia treatments, a discrete event simulation model is best suited to accurately capture all of the relevant interdependencies in this chronic, highly heterogeneous disease with limited long-term follow-up data.

Schizophrenia is a chronic disease characterized by periods of relative stability interrupted by acute episodes (or relapses). The course of the disease may vary considerably between patients. Patient histories show considerable inter- and even intra-individual variability. We provide a critical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of three modelling techniques that have been used in schizophrenia: decision trees, (cohort and micro-simulation) Markov models and discrete event simulation models. These modelling techniques are compared in terms of building time, data requirements, medico-scientific experience, simulation time, clinical representation, and their ability to deal with patient heterogeneity, the timing of events, prior events, patient interaction, interaction between covariates and variability (first-order uncertainty).We note that, depending on the research question, the optimal modelling approach should be selected based on the expected differences between the comparators, the number of co-variates, the number of patient subgroups, the interactions between co-variates, and simulation time. Finally, it is argued that in case micro-simulation is required for the cost-effectiveness analysis of schizophrenia treatments, a discrete event simulation model is best suited to accurately capture all of the relevant interdependencies in this chronic, highly heterogeneous disease with limited long-term follow-up data.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common malignancies in developed countries. Screening can reduce mortality significantly, although the most appropriate method is still under debate. Observational studies have revealed that lifestyle measures may also be beneficial for prevention of colorectal cancer. Surgery is still the most effective treatment modality for colorectal cancer. The survival benefits of chemotherapy are only modest. For nearly 5 decades, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the main cytotoxic agent for treatment of colorectal cancer. In the last decade, the new cytotoxic agents raltitrexed, irinotecan and oxaliplatin have been introduced, next to the oral 5-FU analogues capecitabine and tegafur in combination with uracil (UFT). Moreover, the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab and cetuximab have become approved for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. The economic implications of colorectal cancer treatment are substantial. The costs of treatment are mainly attributable to the early and terminal stage of the disease (i.e. surgery, hospitalisation, chemo- and immunotherapy and supportive care). The introduction of new chemo- and immunotherapeutics has caused a continuing increase of treatment expenditures. Therefore, comparative costs and cost effectiveness are important for assessing the value of new treatment regimens. The available study results suggest that addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin to 5-FU/folinic acid dosage regimens is cost effective. Also, capecitabine is calculated to be cost effective when compared with 5-FU/folinic acid. For UFT, no comparative studies of cost effectiveness were found. Since raltitrexed and 5-FU/ folinic acid have shown equal efficacy in terms of survival, cost-effectiveness analysis is considered not to be applicable and cost-minimisation analysis may be sufficient. At present, pharmacoeconomic analyses of combination treatment with the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab or cetuximab are not available, except for recent cost-effectiveness considerations by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence with negative recommendations for both agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Given the high treatment costs, substantial toxicity and relatively limited efficacy of the fast changing chemo- and immunotherapeutic combinations for colorectal cancer, examination of cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted on a routine basis along with determination of clinical benefits.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common malignancies in developed countries. Screening can reduce mortality significantly, although the most appropriate method is still under debate. Observational studies have revealed that lifestyle measures may also be beneficial for prevention of colorectal cancer.Surgery is still the most effective treatment modality for colorectal cancer. The survival benefits of chemotherapy are only modest. For nearly 5 decades, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the main cytotoxic agent for treatment of colorectal cancer. In the last decade, the new cytotoxic agents raltitrexed, irinotecan and oxaliplatin have been introduced, next to the oral 5-FU analogues capecitabine and tegafur in combination with uracil (UFT). Moreover, the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab and cetuximab have become approved for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.The economic implications of colorectal cancer treatment are substantial. The costs of treatment are mainly attributable to the early and terminal stage of the disease (i.e. surgery, hospitalisation, chemo- and immunotherapy and supportive care). The introduction of new chemo- and immunotherapeutics has caused a continuing increase of treatment expenditures. Therefore, comparative costs and cost effectiveness are important for assessing the value of new treatment regimens.The available study results suggest that addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin to 5-FU/folinic acid dosage regimens is cost effective. Also, capecitabine is calculated to be cost effective when compared with 5-FU/folinic acid. For UFT, no comparative studies of cost effectiveness were found. Since raltitrexed and 5-FU/ folinic acid have shown equal efficacy in terms of survival, cost-effectiveness analysis is considered not to be applicable and cost-minimisation analysis may be sufficient. At present, pharmacoeconomic analyses of combination treatment with the immunotherapeutics bevacizumab or cetuximab are not available, except for recent cost-effectiveness considerations by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence with negative recommendations for both agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.Given the high treatment costs, substantial toxicity and relatively limited efficacy of the fast changing chemo- and immunotherapeutic combinations for colorectal cancer, examination of cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted on a routine basis along with determination of clinical benefits.

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists (angiotensin II receptor blockers; ARBs) are a class of antihypertensive drugs that are generally considered comparable to ACE inhibitors in the prevention of heart and kidney failure. However, these two classes of agents do interfere in different stages of the renin-angiotensin system. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, advantages for ARBs over conventional (non-ACE inhibitor) therapy on progression from micro- to macroalbuminuria and overt nephropathy and end-stage renal disease have been shown in clinical trials. In patients with type 2 diabetes and end-stage renal disease, the need for dialysis and/or transplantation results in the use of major healthcare resources. This paper reviews the available economic evidence on treatment with ARBs in type 2 diabetic patients with advanced renal disease.Within-trial analytic and Markov model economic evaluations of the RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoint in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan), IDNT (Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial) and IRMA (IRbesartan in type 2 diabetes with MicroAlbuminuria)-2 studies suggest that treatment with ARBs in patients with type 2 diabetes with overt or incipient nephropathy confers health gains and net cost savings compared with conventional (non-ACE inhibitor) therapy. For reimbursement and reference pricing decisions, there is a need for a head-to-head comparison of an ACE inhibitor with ARBs to model all possible costs and effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. This will result in a proper pharmacoeconomic outcome, where both types of drugs can be compared for healthcare decisions.

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists (angiotensin II receptor blockers; ARBs) are a class of antihypertensive drugs that are generally considered comparable to ACE inhibitors in the prevention of heart and kidney failure. However, these two classes of agents do interfere in different stages of the renin-angiotensin system. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, advantages for ARBs over conventional (non-ACE inhibitor) therapy on progression from micro- to macroalbuminuria and overt nephropathy and end-stage renal disease have been shown in clinical trials. In patients with type 2 diabetes and end-stage renal disease, the need for dialysis and/or transplantation results in the use of major healthcare resources. This paper reviews the available economic evidence on treatment with ARBs in type 2 diabetic patients with advanced renal disease. Within-trial analytic and Markov model economic evaluations of the RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoint in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan), IDNT (Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial) and IRMA (IRbesartan in type 2 diabetes with MicroAlbuminuria)-2 studies suggest that treatment with ARBs in patients with type 2 diabetes with overt or incipient nephropathy confers health gains and net cost savings compared with conventional (non-ACE inhibitor) therapy. For reimbursement and reference pricing decisions, there is a need for a head-to-head comparison of an ACE inhibitor with ARBs to model all possible costs and effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. This will result in a proper pharmacoeconomic outcome, where both types of drugs can be compared for healthcare decisions.

Currently, much debate still surrounds the discounting of health effects: Most general consensus statements have argued for the same discount rate for health and money; however, this practice has been questioned by several authors. The choice of discount rate can have varying effects on interventions, depending on the disease area. In this paper, we review two major current controversies around. discounting: the use of similar or differential discount rates for-health and money and the validity of the underlying discounting model (time preference, constant discounting and the use of aggregated utilities for health effects). Various arguments justify a different rate of discounting for health effects than for money. Empirical evidence questions the validity of the constant discounting. model, pointing out that time preference is not constant and should not be applied as such. Also, the validity of the aggregated utility model, for-health might be. questioned, implying that a life cannot simply be cut into life years as single entities that are discounted back to the net present value: Such debates have led to varying methodologies being employed in economic evaluations, causing, difficulties in their interpretation. Although there is sufficient evidence to question the use of similar discount rates for health and money, currently there is not enough information on the nature of the different processes that constitute discounting to reach a solid conclusion on the use of a different method. The lack of consensus on one of the most important topics in pharmacoeconomics makes the case for a more restricted use of cost-effectiveness or cost-utility ratios than as the most important singular outcome of pharmacoeconomic studies. Instead, results should be presented in a non-aggregated manner that. enables policy makers to value health gains according to timing and to which subpopulation they are accrued in.

Currently, much debate still surrounds the discounting of health effects: Most general consensus statements have argued for the same discount rate for health and money; however, this practice has been questioned by several authors. The choice of discount rate can have varying effects on interventions, depending on the disease area. In this paper, we review two major current controversies around. discounting: the use of similar or differential discount rates for-health and money and the validity of the underlying discounting model (time preference, constant discounting and the use of aggregated utilities for health effects).Various arguments justify a different rate of discounting for health effects than for money. Empirical evidence questions the validity of the constant discounting. model, pointing out that time preference is not constant and should not be applied as such. Also, the validity of the aggregated utility model, for-health might be. questioned, implying that a life cannot simply be cut into life years as single entities that are discounted back to the net present value: Such debates have led to varying methodologies being employed in economic evaluations, causing, difficulties in their interpretation. Although there is sufficient evidence to question the use of similar discount rates for health and money, currently there is not enough information on the nature of the different processes that constitute discounting to reach a solid conclusion on the use of a different method.The lack of consensus on one of the most important topics in pharmacoeconomics makes the case for a more restricted use of cost-effectiveness or cost-utility ratios than as the most important singular outcome of pharmacoeconomic studies. Instead, results should be presented in a non-aggregated manner that. enables policy makers to value health gains according to timing and to which subpopulation they are accrued in.