Search

AIMS: The ageing society may lead to increasing healthcare expenditure. A clinical medication review (CMR) could potentially reduce costs. The aim of this study is to perform a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective of a patient-centred CMR.METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as part of the DREAMeR study, a pragmatic controlled trial that randomised patients aged ≥70 years using at least seven drugs to either CMR or usual care. Over six months, healthcare consumption and drug use were collected to estimate costs, and effects were collected in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured with EQ-5D-5 L and EQ-VAS and as reduced health-related complaints with impact on patients' daily lives.RESULTS: The total mean costs per patient (n = 588) over six months were €4,189 ± 6,596 for the control group (n = 294) and €4,008 ± 6,678 for the intervention group (n = 294), including estimated intervention costs of €199 ± 67, which resulted in a mean incremental total cost savings of €181 for the intervention group compared to the control group. Compared to the control group, for the intervention group, the mean incremental QALYs over six months were: -0.00217 measured with EQ-5D and 0.003 measured with EQ-VAS. The incremental effect of reduced health-related complaints with impact was -0.34. There was a likelihood of >90% that the intervention was cost-saving.CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of a patient-centred CMR were inconsistent with no benefits on HR-QoL measured with EQ-5D-5 L and small benefits on HR-QoL measured with EQ-VAS and health-related complaints with impact on patients' daily lives. Additionally, a CMR could potentially be cost saving from a societal perspective.

Background: Limited evidence for the implementation of new health technologies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may lead to uncertainties in economic evaluations and cause the evaluations to produce inaccurate information for decision making. We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations on implementing new short-course regimens (SCR) for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB), to explore how uncertainties due to the limited evidence in the studies were dealt with and to identify useful information for decision making from these studies. Methods: We searched in electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, NHSEED, and CEA registry for economic evaluations addressing the implementation of new anti-TB SCRs in LMICs published until September 2018. We included studies addressing both the cost and outcomes of implementing a new regimen for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant TB with a shorter treatment duration than the currently used regimens. The quality of the included studies was assessed using The Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. We extracted information from the included studies on uncertainties and how they were managed. The management of uncertainties was compared with approaches used in early health technology assessments (HTAs), including sensitivity analyses and pragmatic scenario analyses. We extracted information that could be useful for decision making such as cost-effectiveness conclusions, and barriers to implementing the intervention. Results: Four of the 322 studies found in the search met the eligibility criteria. Three studies were model-based studies that investigated the cost effectiveness of a new first-line SCR. One study was an empirical study investigating the cost effectiveness of new regimens for drug-resistant TB. The model-based studies addressed uncertainties due to limited evidence through various sensitivity analyses as in early HTAs. They performed a deterministic sensitivity analysis and found the

Aims: There is a trend for more flexibility in timing of evidence generation in relation to marketing authorization, including the option to complete phase III trials after authorization or not at all. This paper investigated the relation between phase II and III clinical trial efficacy in oncology. Methods: All oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (2007–2016) were included. Phase II and phase III trials were matched based on indication and treatment and patient characteristics. Reported objective response rates (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were analysed through weighted mixed-effects regression with previous treatment, treatment regimen, blinding, randomization, marketing authorization type and cancer type as covariates. Results: A total of 81 phase II-III matches were identified including 252 trials. Mean (standard deviation) weighted difference (phase III minus II) was −4.2% (17.4) for ORR, 2.1 (6.7) months for PFS and −0.3 (5.1) months for OS, indicating very small average differences between phases. Differences varied substantially between individual indications: from −46.6% to 47.3% for ORR, from −5.3 to 35.9 months for PFS and from −13.3 to 10.8 months for OS. All covariates except blinding were associated with differences in effect sizes for at least 1 outcome. Conclusions: The lack of marked average differences between phases may encourage decision-makers to regard the quality of design and total body of evidence instead of differentiating between phases of clinical development. The large variability emphasizes that replication of study findings remains essential to confirm efficacy of oncology drugs and discern variables associated with demonstrated effects.

Background: In many countries, Budget Impact (BI) informs reimbursement decisions. Evidence has shown that decision-makers have restricted access based on high BI estimates but studies show that BI estimates are often inaccurate. Objective: To assess the accuracy of BI estimations used for informing access decisions on oncology drugs in the Netherlands. Study Design: Oncology products for which European Medicines Agency Marketing Authorisation was granted between 1-1-2000 and 1-10-2017 were selected. Observed BI data were provided by FarmInform. BI estimates were extracted from the reimbursement dossiers of the Dutch Healthcare Institute. Products without an estimated BI in the reimbursement dossier were excluded. Accuracy is defined as the ratio observed BI/estimated BI. Setting: General community, the Netherlands. Results: Ten products were included in the base case analysis. Mean accuracy was 0.64 and observed BI deviated by more than 40% and 100% from the estimated BI for 4 and 5 products, respectively. For all products together, €141 million BI was estimated and €82 million BI was observed, a €59 million difference. Conclusions: The findings indicate that BI estimates for oncology drugs in the Netherlands are inaccurate. The role and use of BI in reimbursement decisions for these potentially life-saving drugs should therefore be considered carefully, as well as BI estimation methodology.

BACKGROUND: High budget impact (BI) estimates of new drugs limit access to patients due to concerns regarding affordability and displacement effects. The accuracy and methodological quality of BI analyses are often low, potentially mis-informing reimbursement decision making. Using hepatitis C as a case study, we aim to quantify the accuracy of the BI predictions used in Dutch reimbursement decision-making and to characterize the influence of market-dynamics on actual BI.METHODS: We selected hepatitis C direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) that were introduced in the Netherlands between January 2014 and March 2018. Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN) BI estimates were derived from the reimbursement dossiers. Actual Dutch BI data were provided by FarmInform. BI prediction accuracy was assessed by comparing the ZIN BI estimates with the actual BI data.RESULTS: Actual BI, from 1 Jan 2014 to 1 March 2018, was €248 million whilst the BI estimates ranged from €388-€510 million. The latter figure represents the estimated BI for the reimbursement scenario that was adopted, implying a €275 million overestimation. Absent incorporation of timing of regulatory decisions and inadequate correction for the introduction of new products were main drivers of BI overestimation, as well as uncertainty regarding the patient population size and the impact of the final reimbursement decision.DISCUSSION: BI in reimbursement dossiers largely overestimated actual BI of hepatitis C DAAs. When BI analysis is performed according to existing guidelines, the resulting more accurate BI estimates may lead to better informed reimbursement decisions.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to construct an early economic evaluation for acalabrutinib for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) to assist early reimbursement decision making. Scenarios were assessed to find the relative impact of critical parameters on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib from a UK national health service perspective. This model included states for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were parametrically extrapolated from ibrutinib publications and a preliminary hazard ratio based on phase I/II data was applied for acalabrutinib. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and 1296 scenarios were assessed.RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £61,941/QALY, with 3.44 incremental QALYs and incremental costs of £213,339. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that survival estimates, utilities and treatment costs of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and resource use during PFS have the greatest influence on the ICER. Probabilistic results under different development scenarios indicated that greater efficacy of acalabrutinib would decrease the likelihood of cost effectiveness (from 63% at no effect to 2% at maximum efficacy). Scenario analyses showed that a reduction in PFS did not lead to great QALY differences (- 8 to - 14% incremental QALYs) although it did greatly affect costs (- 47 to - 122% incremental pounds). For OS, the opposite was true (- 89 to - 93% QALYs and - 7 to - 39% pounds).CONCLUSIONS: Acalabrutinib is not likely to be cost effective compared with ibrutinib under current development scenarios. The conflicting effects of OS, PFS, drug costs and utility during PFS show that determining the cost effectiveness of acalabrutinib without insight into all par

BACKGROUND: Redispensing unused medications that have been returned to outpatient pharmacies by patients may reduce waste and healthcare costs. However, little is known regarding the extra costs associated with this process, nor the price level of medications for which this is economically beneficial. The objective of this study was to assess costs associated with redispensing unused medications in the pharmacy and the price level at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial.METHODS: A micro-costing study was conducted in four Dutch outpatient pharmacies for medications requiring room-temperature storage and requiring refrigeration. First, the pharmacy's necessary additional process steps and resources for redispensing were identified. Second, time required for each process step was simulated. Third, required resources were quantified by calculating labour, purchasing and overhead costs. Lastly, a model with different scenarios was constructed to calculate the price of a medication package at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial.RESULTS: Three main additional process steps for redispensing were identified: (1) pack medications with product quality indicators before dispensing, (2) assess quality of medications returned to the pharmacy (temperature storage, package integrity, expiry date) and (3a) restock medications fulfilling quality criteria or (3b) dispose of medications not fulfilling criteria. Total time required for all steps up to restock one medication package was on average 5.3 (SD ±0.3) and 6.8 (SD ±0.3) minutes for medications stored at room-temperature and under refrigeration, respectively, and associated costs were €5.54 and €7.61. Similar outcomes were found if a medication package would ultimately be disposed of. The price level primarily depended upon the proportion of dispensed packages returned unused to the pharmacy and fulfilling the quality criteria: if 5% is returned, of which 60% fulfils quality criteria, the price leve

INTRODUCTION: There is broad consensus that community pharmacists should focus on the provision of pharmaceutical care. Studies, however, have shown that community pharmacists still spend a considerable amount of time on traditional activities such as dispensing instead of cognitive pharmaceutical services (CPS). It is not clear whether community pharmacists prefer their current time-utilization or if they are willing to spend more time on CPS.AIM: The aim of this study was to identify how community pharmacists ideally would prioritize CPS compared to other daily activities.METHODS: A cross-sectional study design with Q-methodology was used to identify different viewpoints regarding task prioritization. Community pharmacists were asked to rank a total of 48 daily activities. Data was collected online using FlashQ©. Q-sorts were analyzed by principal component factor analysis and varimax rotation using PQmethod 2.35.RESULTS: In total, 166 community pharmacists participated in this study. Three distinguishing groups were found based on task prioritization explaining 59% of the total variance among respondents. All groups ranked the provision of CPS as important, in differing degrees. Group 1 ranked CPS as most important and was also the group that contained most participants. Group 2 and 3 ranked quality assurance as most important with CPS as second. Logistics and pharmacy management were ranked low by all groups.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists rank the provision of CPS as important. So factors, probably other than task prioritization, are keeping the pharmacist from focusing on CPS in daily practice. In other studies, time constraints are mostly mentioned as major barrier. Activities such as logistics and pharmacy management are given less priority and should be delegated to supporting staff members as much as possible, to enable pharmacists to focus their available time on activities they deem important.