Search

Objective: Tiger beetles inhabiting sandy beaches and cliffs along the east coast of the United States are facing increasing habitat loss due to erosion, urbanization, and sea level rise. The northeastern beach tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis and Puritan tiger beetle Cicindela puritana are both listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, while the white beach tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis media is not listed but has been declining. Extirpation of these beetles, in some cases from entire states, has isolated many populations reducing gene flow and elevating the risk for the loss of genetic variation. To facilitate investigations of population genetic structure, we developed suites of microsatellite loci for conservation genetic studies. Results: Shotgun genomic sequencing of all species identified thousands of candidate microsatellite loci, among which 17 loci were optimized and verified to cross-amplify within C. d. media and C. d. dorsalis, and eight separate loci were optimized for C. puritana. Most loci conformed to Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, showed no evidence of linkage disequilibrium or null alleles, and revealed population genetic characteristics informative for natural resource managers among the populations tested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Recent debates and events have brought into question the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the United States and Europe to ensure their performance, safety, and quality. This article provides a comparative analysis of medical device regulation in the two jurisdictions, explores current reforms to improve the existing systems, and discusses additional actions that should be considered to fully meet this aim. Medical device regulation must be improved to safeguard public health and ensure that high-quality and effective technologies reach patients. Methods We explored and analyzed medical device regulatory systems in the United States and Europe in accordance with the available gray and peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents. Findings The two regulatory systems differ in their mandate and orientation, organization, pre- and postmarket evidence requirements, and transparency of process. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions face similar challenges for ensuring that only safe and effective devices reach the market, monitoring real-world use, and exchanging pertinent information on devices with key users such as clinicians and patients. To address these issues, reforms have recently been introduced or debated in the United States and Europe that are principally focused on strengthening regulatory processes, enhancing postmarket regulation through more robust surveillance systems, and improving the traceability and monitoring of devices. Some changes in premarket requirements for devices are being considered. Conclusions Although the current reforms address some of the outstanding challenges in device regulation, additional steps are needed to improve existing policy. We examine a number of actions to be considered, such as requiring high-quality evidence of benefit for medium- and high-risk devices; moving toward greater centralization and coordination of regulatory approval in Europe; creating links between device identifier systems and existing data collection tools, such as electronic health records; and fostering increased and more effective use of registries to ensure safe postmarket use of new and existing devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rising health care costs are an international concern, particularly in the United States, where spending on health care outpaces that of other industrialized countries. Consequently, there is growing desire in the United States and Europe to take a more value-based approach to health care, particularly with respect to the adoption and use of new health technology. This article examines medical device reimbursement and pricing policies in the United States and Europe, with a particular focus on value. Compared to the United States, Europe more formally and consistently considers value to determine which technologies to cover and at what price, especially for complex, costly devices. Both the United States and Europe have introduced policies to provide temporary coverage and reimbursement for promising technologies while additional evidence of value is generated. But additional actions are needed in both the United States and Europe to ensure wise value-based reimbursement and pricing policies for all devices, including the generation of better pre- and postmarket evidence and the development of new methods to evaluate value and link evidence of value to reimbursement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Confronted with similar challenges, the United States and the United Kingdom have adopted very different health technology policies. In the United States, the focus has been on technology creation, in particular the funding of basic biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. This both reflects and reinforces an innovation-first culture in the United States, including in health. By contrast, the United Kingdom has been much more heavily committed to applied research and evaluative research, including health-technology assessment. That is, while U.S. policy has focused on technology creation, U.K. policy has been more oriented toward technology diffusion. This article surveys the sources of these differences. We consider the impacts of institutional, cultural, and other factors that may explain them, and emphasize that it is hard to disentangle the separate effects of those factors. We conclude with a discussion of the difficulties in drawing cross-national lessons in health technology policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent study found fewer hospitalizations for congestive heart failure (CHF) patients receiving high-dose versus low-dose statin therapy. Objective: To examine the cost effectiveness of high-dose versus low-dose statin therapy in CHF patients. Methods: Two scenarios (literature-based [base-case scenario] vs trial-based post-event mortality [alternative scenario]) assessed the cost effectiveness of atorvastatin 80mg/day (A80) versus atorvastatin 10 mg/day (A10) in patients with both CHF and coronary heart disease (CHD) [CHF/CHD], using a lifetime Markov model. The model predicts treatment-specific probabilities of major and minor cardiovascular events and death, based on clinical trial data. The quality of life and costs were literature based. Measures included costs per life-year saved (LYS) and QALY gained. Health consequences and costs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Analyses were conducted from the payer perspective and valued in $US, year 2006-7 values. Results: Literature-based mortality estimates (base case) increased life-years and QALYs for A80 compared with A10 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs]: $US9600 per LYS; $US13 600 per QALY). At a willingness to pay of $US100 000 per QALY, A80 was cost effective in 80% of simulations. A10 dominated A80 when using trial-based mortality estimates (alternative scenario). At a willingness to pay of $US100 000 per QALY, A80 was cost effective in 48% of simulations. Conclusions: Intensive A80 treatment may be cost effective versus A10 in cardiovascular prevention in CHF/CHD patients in the US, due to projected gains in life expectancy and health-related quality of life. However, the results are highly sensitive to assumptions about the mortality rate in the model. When using the mortality rate observed in the trial, A10 dominates A80. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Economic issues have had a growing importance in the health care field as the sector's share of the gross national product has risen. Clinicians are under increasing pressure to adopt more cost-effective treatment practices as a result of initiatives being taken by the major third-party payers, government, and business. However, recent publications suggest that there are some misconceptions about economics in health care and the extent to which it is in conflict with good clinical practice. To provide a foundation for the understanding of this field by clinicians, we have outlined several basic notions of health economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outlines the basic forms of economic evaluation and gives a few examples from the field of gastroenterology. Cost analysis or cost-minimization analysis as the simplest form of economic evaluation; Formal role played by economic evaluation in decisions about the reimbursement or use of new health technologies in a number of countries, especially in the case of listing of new pharmaceuticals on the national or local formulary.

Focuses on the publication of pharmacoeconomic data submitted to reimbursement or clinical guidelines agencies in the U.S. Submission of the data in some cases to certain government agencies; Commercial and academic reasons for designating data; Presentation of estimates of the value of health care interventions and that have been derived using sound methodology and credible data sources.

The fourth section of our Special Task Force report focuses on a health plan or payer's technology adoption or reimbursement decision, given the array of technologies, on the basis of their different values and costs. We discuss the role of budgets, thresholds, opportunity costs, and affordability in making decisions. First, we discuss the use of budgets and thresholds in private and public health plans, their interdependence, and connection to opportunity cost. Essentially, each payer should adopt a decision rule about what is good value for money given their budget; consistent use of a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year threshold will ensure the maximum health gain for the budget. In the United States, different public and private insurance programs could use different thresholds, reflecting the differing generosity of their budgets and implying different levels of access to technologies. In addition, different insurance plans could consider different additional elements to the quality-adjusted life-year metric discussed elsewhere in our Special Task Force report. We then define affordability and discuss approaches to deal with it, including consideration of disinvestment and related adjustment costs, the impact of delaying new technologies, and comparative cost effectiveness of technologies. Over time, the availability of new technologies may increase the amount that populations want to spend on health care. We then discuss potential modifiers to thresholds, including uncertainty about the evidence used in the decision-making process. This article concludes by discussing the application of these concepts in the context of the pluralistic US health care system, as well as the "excess burden" of tax-financed public programs versus private programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The pharmacoeconomic guidelines available in the literature or promulgated in many countries are either vague or silent about how drug costs should be established or measured so an international comparison of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) results can be made. The objective of this report is to provide guidance and recommendations on how drug costs should be measured for CEAs done from an internationally comparative perspective. Methods: Members of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Good Research Practices—Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis (Drug Cost Task Force [DCTF]) subgroup from several countries were experienced developers or users of CEA models, and worked in academia, industry, and as advisors to governments. They solicited comments on drafts from a core group of 174 external reviewers and more broadly, from the members of the ISPOR at the ISPOR 12th Annual International meeting and via the ISPOR Web site. Results: Drug units should be standardized in terms of volume of active ingredient, regardless of packaging and dosing strength variations across countries. Drug costs should be measured in local currency per unit of active ingredient and should be converted to other currencies using sensitivity analyses of purchasing power parities (PPP) and exchange rates, whichever is more appropriate. When using drug prices from different years, the consumer price index for the local currency should be applied before the PPP and/or exchange rate conversion. Conclusion: CEA researchers conducting international pharmacoeconomic analysis should tailor the appropriate measure of drug costs to the international perspective, to maintain clarity and transparency on drug cost measurement in the context of international drug comparison and report the sensitivity of CEA results to reasonable cost conversions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The assignment of prices or costs to pharmaceuticals can be crucial to results and conclusions that are derived from pharmacoeconomic cost effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Although numerous pharmacoeconomic practice guidelines are available in the literature and have been promulgated in many countries, these guidelines are either vague or silent about how drug costs should be established or measured. This is particularly problematic in pharmacoeconomic studies performed from the “societal” perspective, because typically the measured cost of a brand name pharmaceutical is not a true economic cost but also includes transfer payments from some members of society (patients and third party payers) to other members of society (pharmaceutical manufacturer stockholders) in large part as a reward for biomedical innovation. Moreover, there are numerous and complex institutional factors that influence how drug costs should be measured from other CEA perspectives, both internationally and within the domestic US context. The objective of this report is to provide guidance and recommendations on how drug costs should be measured for CEAs performed from a number of key analytic perspectives. Methods: ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis (Drug Cost Task Force [DCTF]) was appointed with the advice and consent of the ISPOR Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of CEA models, worked in academia, industry, and as advisors to governments, and came from several countries. Because how drug costs should be measured for CEAs depend on the perspectives, five Task Force subgroups were created to develop drug cost standards from the societal, managed care, US government, industry, and international perspective. The ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis (DCTF) subgroups met to develop core assumptions and an outline before preparing six draft reports. They solicited comments on the outline and drafts from a core group of 174 external reviewers and more broadly from the membership of ISPOR at two ISPOR meetings and via the ISPOR web site. Results: Drug cost measurements should be fully transparent and reflect the net payment most relevant to the user's perspective. The Task Force recommends that for CEAs of brand name drugs performed from a societal perspective, either 1) CEA analysts use a cost that more accurately reflects true societal drug costs (e.g., 20–60% of average sales price), or when that is too unrealistic to be meaningful for decision-makers, 2) refer to their analyses as from a “limited societal perspective.” CEAs performed from a payer perspective should use drug prices actually paid by the relevant payer net of all rebates, copays, or other adjustments. When such price adjustments are confidential, the analyst should apply a typical or average discount that preserves this confidentiality. Conclusions: Drug transaction prices not only ration current use of medication but also ration future biomedical research and development. CEA researchers should tailor the appropriate measure of drug costs to the analytic perspective, maintain clarity and transparency on drug cost measurement, and report the sensitivity of CEA results to reasonable drug cost measurement alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Routine influenza vaccination is currently recommended in several countries for people aged more than 60 or 65 years or with high risk of complications. A lower age threshold of 50 years has been recommended in the United States since 1999. To help policymakers consider whether such a policy should be adopted more widely, we conducted an economic evaluation of lowering the age limit for routine influenza vaccination to 50 years in Brazil, France, Germany, and Italy. Methods: The probabilistic model was designed to compare in a single season the costs and clinical outcomes associated with two alternative vaccination policies for persons aged 50 to 64 years: reimbursement only for people at high risk of complications (current policy), and reimbursement for all individuals in this age group (proposed policy). Two perspectives were considered: third-party payer (TPP) and societal. Model inputs were obtained primarily from the published literature and validated through expert opinion. The historical distribution of annual influenza-like illness (ILI) incidence was used to simulate the uncertain incidence in any given season. We estimated gains in unadjusted and quality-adjusted life expectancy, and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Comparing the proposed to the current policy, the estimated mean costs per QALY gained were R$4,100, &U20AC;13,200, &U20AC;31,400 and &U20AC;15,700 for Brazil, France, Germany, and Italy, respectively, from a TPP perspective. From the societal perspective, the age-based policy is predicted to yield net cost savings in Germany and Italy, whereas the cost per QALY decreased to R$2800 for Brazil and &U20AC;8000 for France. The results were particularly sensitive to the ILI incidence rate, vaccine uptake, influenza fatality rate, and the costs of administering vaccination. Assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold ratio of &U20AC;50,000 per QALY gained, the probabilities of the new policy being cost-effective were 94% and 95% for France, 72% and near 100% for Germany, and 89% and 99% for Italy, from the TPP and societal perspectives, respectively. Conclusions: Extending routine influenza vaccination to people more than 50 years of age is likely to be cost-effective in all four countries studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transformative cell and gene therapies have now launched worldwide, and many potentially curative cell and gene therapies are in development, offering the prospect of significant health gains for patients. Access to these therapies depend on decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations. We sought to describe the emerging cell and gene therapies market access landscape by analyzing 17 US commercial payer medical policies, and HTA reports from five European countries and Canada. We found that some US health plans applied coverage restrictions more often than others (four plans applied restrictions in all decisions, while four plans applied restrictions in <30% of decisions). The European and Canadian HTA bodies recommend access to fewer therapies than US health plans, reflecting a more stringent approach in the context of limited evidence and high scientific uncertainty that is commonly associated with these treatments. Our findings suggest that patient access to approved cell and gene therapies is restricted in all regions studied, though the nature of these restrictions differs between US health plans and the European/Canada HTA recommendations. Payers, HTA groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders should collaborate to more clearly define the "uncertainties" and develop market access policies that balance benefits of early access with ongoing data collection to close evidence gaps over time., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The fifth section of our Special Task Force report identifies and discusses two aggregation issues: 1) aggregation of cost and benefit information across individuals to a population level for benefit plan decision making and 2) combining multiple elements of value into a single value metric for individuals. First, we argue that additional elements could be included in measures of value, but such elements have not generally been included in measures of quality-adjusted life-years. For example, we describe a recently developed extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) that provides a good example of how to use a broader concept of utility. ECEA adds two features-measures of financial risk protection and income distributional consequences. We then discuss a further option for expanding this approach-augmented CEA, which can introduce many value measures. Neither of these approaches, however, provide a comprehensive measure of value. To resolve this issue, we review a technique called multicriteria decision analysis that can provide a comprehensive measure of value. We then discuss budget-setting and prioritization using multicriteria decision analysis, issues not yet fully resolved. Next, we discuss deliberative processes, which represent another important approach for population- or plan-level decisions used by many health technology assessment bodies. These use quantitative information on CEA and other elements, but the group decisions are reached by a deliberative voting process. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of stated preference methods for developing "hedonic" value frameworks, and conclude with some recommendations in this area., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This summary section first lists key points from each of the six sections of the report, followed by six key recommendations. The Special Task Force chose to take a health economics approach to the question of whether a health plan should cover and reimburse a specific technology, beginning with the view that the conventional cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric has both strengths as a starting point and recognized limitations. This report calls for the development of a more comprehensive economic evaluation that could include novel elements of value (e.g., insurance value and equity) as part of either an "augmented" cost-effectiveness analysis or a multicriteria decision analysis. Given an aggregation of elements to a measure of value, consistent use of a cost-effectiveness threshold can help ensure the maximization of health gain and well-being for a given budget. These decisions can benefit from the use of deliberative processes. The six recommendations are to: 1) be explicit about decision context and perspective in value assessment frameworks; 2) base health plan coverage and reimbursement decisions on an evaluation of the incremental costs and benefits of health care technologies as is provided by cost-effectiveness analysis; 3) develop value thresholds to serve as one important input to help guide coverage and reimbursement decisions; 4) manage budget constraints and affordability on the basis of cost-effectiveness principles; 5) test and consider using structured deliberative processes for health plan coverage and reimbursement decisions; and 6) explore and test novel elements of benefit to improve value measures that reflect the perspectives of both plan members and patients., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Regulatory approval and reimbursement are necessary to bring health technologies to market. As both are distinct processes, the lack of interaction between regulators and payers has been criticized for resulting in health system inefficiencies., Objectives: This study describes the experiences of health system stakeholders on the development and implementation of initiatives to better harmonize HTA-reimbursement and regulatory activities, as well as Canadian perceptions on such initiatives., Methods: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews was conducted. Participants represented those whom have published or worked actively in this area or who held positions in HTA and/or reimbursement agencies that gave them insight into the Canadian healthcare system. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed to identify emerging themes and relationships., Results: Fourteen individuals from twelve organizations participated, including representatives from Canada, US, UK and Netherlands. Harmonization was identified as either a means to: (i) develop economies of scale in the generation of clinical data; and/or (ii) align the lifecycle of a health technology. For such initiatives to be successfully implemented, the following key issues emerged: (i) fostering healthy relationships; (ii) promoting well-intentions; (iii) defining governance and leadership clearly; and (iv) securing organizational infrastructure., Conclusions: Attempts to harmonize reimbursement and regulatory activities is in its infancy; although, much can be learned from current Canadian and international experiences. Within Canada there is much interest, although concerns have been raised on the extent to which harmonization is possible. Successful policy implementation would require inter-agency collaborations, with particular attention towards capacity building and strong leadership.

Objectives: In recent years, there has been growth in the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for making decisions about the reimbursement, coverage, or guidance on the use of health technologies. Given this greater emphasis on the use of HTA, it is important to develop standards of good practice and to benchmark the various HTA organizations against these standards., Methods: This study discusses the conceptual and methodological challenges associated with benchmarking HTA organizations and proposes a series of audit questions based on a previously published set of principles of good practice., Results and Conclusions: It is concluded that a benchmarking exercise would be feasible and useful, although the question of who should do the benchmarking requires further discussion. Key issues for further research are the alternative methods for weighting the various principles and for generating an overall score, or summary statement of adherence to the principles. Any weighting system, if developed, would need to be explored in different jurisdictions to assess the extent to which the relative importance of the principles is perceived to vary. Finally, the development and precise wording of the audit questions requires further study, with a view to making the questions as unambiguous as possible, and the reproducibility of the assessments as high as possible.

Context: The terms evidence-based medicine (EBM), health technology assessment (HTA), comparative effectiveness research (CER), and other related terms lack clarity and so could lead to miscommunication, confusion, and poor decision making. The objective of this article is to clarify their definitions and the relationships among key terms and concepts., Methods: This article used the relevant methods and policy literature as well as the websites of organizations engaged in evidence-based activities to develop a framework to explain the relationships among the terms EBM, HTA, and CER., Findings: This article proposes an organizing framework and presents a graphic demonstrating the differences and relationships among these terms and concepts., Conclusions: More specific terminology and concepts are necessary for an informed and clear public policy debate. They are even more important to inform decision making at all levels and to engender more accountability by the organizations and individuals responsible for these decisions.

This paper reviews the history of modelling for cervical cancer vaccination. We provide an interpretation and summary of conclusions pertaining to the usefulness of different models, the predicted epidemiological impact of vaccination and the cost-effectiveness of adolescent, catch-up and sex-specific vaccination strategies. To date, model results predict a critical role for vaccination in reducing the burden of cervical disease, with cost-effectiveness being consistently shown across studies using a common threshold of US $50,000 per QALY, but further clinical and epidemiological data are required to confirm these findings. Through this paper, we aim to provide useful insights for decision-makers as they examine how to best evaluate the potential impact of vaccines against cervical cancer and determine how to best incorporate vaccination into practice.

Historically, patients with rare diseases have been underserved by commercial drug development. In several jurisdictions, specific legislation has been enacted to encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases (orphan drugs), which would otherwise not be commercially viable. However, because of the small market, these drugs are often very expensive. Under the standard methods of health technology assessment (HTA) incorporating economic evaluation, orphan drugs do not usually prove to be cost-effective and this, coupled with their high cost, means that funding and patient access may be limited. However, these restrictions may not be in line with societal preferences. Therefore, this study discusses whether the standard methods of HTA are adequate for assisting decisions on patient access to and funding of orphan drugs and outlines a research agenda to help understand the societal value of orphan drugs and issues surrounding their development, funding, and use.

Demand for economic evaluations in multinational clinical trials is increasing, but there is little consensus about how such studies should be conducted and reported. At a workshop in Durham, North Carolina, we sought to identify areas of agreement about how the primary findings of economic evaluations in multinational clinical trials should be generated and presented. In this paper, we propose a framework for classifying multinational economic evaluations according to (a) the sources of an analyst's estimates of resource use and clinical effectiveness and (b) the analyst's method of estimating costs. We review existing studies in the cardiology literature in the context of the proposed framework. We then describe important methodological and practical considerations in conducting multinational economic evaluations and summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Finally, we describe opportunities for future research. Delineation of the various approaches to multinational economic evaluation may assist researchers, peer reviewers, journal editors, and decision makers in evaluating the strengths and limitations of particular studies.

Healthcare decision makers are increasingly requesting information on the cost and cost-effectiveness of new medicines at the time of product launch. In order to provide this information, data on healthcare resource utilization and, in some cases, costs, may be collected in clinical trials. In this paper, we discuss some of the issues statisticians need to address when it is appropriate to include these economic endpoints in the trial. Several design issues are discussed, including the alternative types of and methods for collecting economic endpoint data, sample size and generalizability. Alternative approaches in the analysis of resource utilization, cost and cost-effectiveness are also presented. Finally, several of the analytic approaches are applied to actual data from a clinical trial.

Objectives: Despite the growing number of pharmacoeconomic (PE)/health economic (HE) studies, very little is known about their use by decision makers. The objectives of the Task Force were to ensure that the good research practices of PE/HE studies pay attention to the needs of health-care decision makers and to develop a "toolbox" for the health-care decision maker wanting to interpret and use PE/HE studies., Methods: The membership of the Task Force consisted of individuals involved in making decisions about the availability or use of medicines and researchers into the use of economic evaluations. The group communicated by E-mail and face-to-face meetings. A literature review of decision makers' attitudes toward PE/HE studies and published economic evaluation guidelines was undertaken. In addition, a focus group discussion was held with opinion leaders in managed care pharmacy., Results: The literature review identified 16 surveys of decision makers' attitudes toward PE/HE studies and 15 published guidelines that outlined reporting requirements for economic evaluations. These were reviewed and classified. Based on the published literature and comments from decision makers, seven additional reporting requirements for studies were specified., Conclusions: While the Task Force's additional reporting requirements may be helpful to decision makers, they raise a number of issues. These include the feasibility of meeting the additional requirements, whether decision makers should receive more education in economic evaluation, and whether there should be more study of health-care decision-making procedures themselves.