Search

Objective: economic evaluation is a fundamental criterion when deciding a drug’s place in therapy. The MADRE method (Method for Assistance in making Decisions and Writing Drug Evaluation Reports) is widely used for drug evaluation. This method was developed by the GENESIS group of the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH), including economic evaluation. We intend to improve the economic aspects of this method. As for the direction to take, we have to first analyze our previous experiences with the current methodology and propose necessary improvements. Method: economic evaluation sections in collaboratively conducted drug evaluation reports (as the scientific society, SEFH) with the MADRE method were reviewed retrospectively. Results: thirty-two reports were reviewed, 87.5% of them included an economic evaluation conducted by authors and 65.6% contained published economic evaluations. In 90.6% of the reports, a Budget impact analysis was conducted. The cost per life year gained or per Quality Adjusted Life Year gained was present in 14 reports. Twenty-three reports received public comments regarding the need to improve the economic aspect. Main difficulties: low quality evidence in the target population, no comparative studies with a relevant comparator, non-final outcomes evaluated, no quality of life data, no fixed drug price available, dosing uncertainty, and different prices for the same drug. Conclusions: proposed improvements: incorporating different forms of aid for non-drug costs, survival estimation and adapting published economic evaluations; establishing criteria for drug price selection, decision-making in conditions of uncertainty and poor quality evidence, dose calculation and cost-effectiveness thresholds depending on different situations.

Purpose: identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments. Methods: a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year. Results: in 42.1% of the hospitals it’s needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department’s report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT. Conclusions: there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval.

Trastuzumab emtansina (T-DM1) is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against the HER2 for the treatment of HER2+ mestastatic breast cancer (MBC), who has previously received trastuzumab plus a taxane. According to the results of the EMILIA trial versus lapatinib plus capecitabine T-DM1 shows an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS). It has a favorable profile reducing the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse reactions such as hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea. On the contrary increases significantly severe thrombocytopenia; bleeding risk and liver function should also be monitored. With the current import price T-DM1 has a cost per QALY of over 120,000 €. The price of the drug for the Spanish NHS has not yet been established. Drug cost would be the key factor in the sensitivity analysis and a 50% reduction in the price of the drug would place it close to the threshold of cost-effectiveness usually considered in our midst. According to the budget impact model used, a maximum of 1,218 patients / year and the budgetary impact throughout the Spanish state would be at € 70,490,850. In the initial analysis no advantage was found for T-DM1 in those patients without visceral involvement. Although a subsequent re-analysis of the results of PFS in which the definition of visceral involvement was specified a significant benefit was shown in this subgroup. We believe that this approach introduces a high degree of uncertainty, which does not guarantee the benefit achieved for this subgroup of patients