Search

Magdolna Barra,1 Edit Remák,1 Dong Dong Liu,2 Li Xie,2 Lucy Abraham,3 Alesia B Sadosky4 1Evidera, Budapest, Hungary; 2Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Pfizer Investment Co., Ltd., Beijing, China; 3Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Pfizer Ltd, Tadworth, UK; 4Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA Purpose: The use of parecoxib plus opioids for postoperative analgesia in noncardiac surgical patients seems to be cost-saving in Europe due to a reduction in opioid use and opioid-related adverse events. Given the lack of information on postoperative analgesic use in Asia, this study assessed the economic consequences of the addition of parecoxib to opioids vs opioids alone to treat postsurgical pain in China.Methods: A cost-consequence economic evaluation assessed direct medical costs related to opioid-related clinically meaningful events (CMEs) utilizing dosing information and reported frequency of events from a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, global clinical trial (PARA-0505-069) of parecoxib plus opioids vs opioids alone for 3 days following major orthopedic, abdominal, gynecologic, or noncardiac thoracic surgery requiring general or regional anesthesia. The cost of CMEs was calculated using information on resource utilization and unit costs provided by a panel of clinical experts in China. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.Results: Patients treated with parecoxib plus opioids reported fewer CMEs (mean 0.62 vs 1.04 events per patient [P

This study estimated lifetime cost of treatment for patients in the United Kingdom (UK) presenting with stage IV breast cancer. To determine patterns of treatment and resource use in the absence of direct observational data, a cancer physician panel was surveyed. The survey questionnaire described four predefined treatment phases: active treatment; follow-up after active treatment until disease progression; active supportive care after progression; and end-of-life care. Physicians were asked their major treatment strategies for each phase. Monthly cost and average lifetime cost per patient were calculated. Only five cancer registries in the UK document the proportion of breast cancer patients diagnosed with stage IV disease. Their data was used to estimate the incidence of metastatic breast cancer at presentation throughout the UK. This value, together with lifetime cost per patient and projected survival time, allowed approximation of the overall cost for this population of cancer patients in the UK. Annual incidence of stage IV breast cancer at presentation in the UK is approximately 2100; according to treatment practice in 2002, lifetime cost per patient is pound 12 500 and total population cost is approximately pound 26 million. The substantial economic burden associated with patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer should be considered when developing strategies for reducing its incidence such as increased awareness, screening and preventative measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In middle income countries the number of trained health technology assessment specialists is limited and the public budget for health technology assessment is considerably lower compared to developed countries. These countries therefore must develop their own solutions to improve the quality and efficiency of health technology assessment implementation in reimbursement decisions. Our study aimed to develop a scientifically rigorous and detailed appraisal checklist for economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals in the single health technology assessment process., Methods: The research design entailed a review of economic evaluations, submitted for reimbursement of pharmaceuticals, by two independent academic reviewers to identify the most common methodological problems. Fifty economic evaluations submitted in 2007-2008, randomly selected by the Health Technology Assessment Office served as data sources. The new checklist was developed by an iterative working process: first by assessing ten economic evaluations, then improving the checklist by generating new question items, then employing the improved checklist to assess the next ten economic evaluations. After appraising 25 documents, the reviewers reconciled their opinions and improved the checklist with the researchers of the Health Technology Assessment Office during an expert panel discussion. The reviewers scrutinized the second 25 economic evaluations, after which the expert panel finalized the checklist with consensus., Results: The final checklist consists of 91 yes or no questions in 11 main topics concerning comparator selection, efficacy, effectiveness, costs, sensitivity analysis, methodological approach, transparency, and interpretation of results. The new checklist is based on current Hungarian evaluation practice. As the published checklist will be part of the official single health technology assessment process of pharmaceuticals, submitters will be able to assure the quality of their economic evaluation., Conclusions: The transparent critical appraisal method should improve the consistency of pharmaceutical reimbursement decisions and facilitate the utilization of economic evaluations in other fields of health care decision-making in other Central-Eastern European countries.

Objective: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data., Methods: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime., Results: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden., Conclusion: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α., (© 2011 PFIZER INC.)