Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Aliterature review was undertaken to identify existing schemes supplemented with additional internal documents or web-based references known to the authors. This was combined with the extensive knowledge of health authority personnel from 14 different countries and locations involved with these schemes.</p> <p>Results and discussion</p> <p>A large number of 'risk sharing' schemes with pharmaceuticals are in existence incorporating both financial-based models and performance-based/outcomes-based models. In view of this, a new logical definition is proposed. This is "<it>risk sharing' schemes should be considered as agreements concluded by payers and pharmaceutical companies to diminish the impact on payers' budgets for new and existing schemes brought about by uncertainty and/or the need to work within finite budgets</it>". There are a number of concerns with existing schemes. These include potentially high administration costs, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and whether health authorities will end up funding an appreciable proportion of a new drug's development costs. In addition, there is a paucity of published evaluations of existing schemes with pharmaceuticals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We believe there are only a limited number of situations where 'risk sharing' schemes should be considered as well as factors that should be considered by payers in advance of implementation. This includes their objective, appropriateness, the availability of competent staff to fully evaluate proposed schemes as well as access to IT support. This also includes whether systematic evaluations have been built into proposed schemes.</p

Metabolic syndrome is associated with similar long-term prognosis in non-obese and obese patients. An analysis of 45 615 patients from the nationwide LIPIDOGRAM 2004-2015 cohort studies

Aims We aimed to evaluate the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and long-term all-cause mortality. Methods The LIPIDOGRAM studies were carried out in the primary care in Poland in 2004, 2006 and 2015. MetS was diagnosed based on the National Cholesterol Education Program, Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP/ATP III) and Joint Interim Statement (JIS) criteria. The cohort was divided into four groups: non-obese patients without MetS, obese patients without MetS, non-obese patients with MetS and obese patients with MetS. Differences in all-cause mortality was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results 45,615 participants were enrolled (mean age 56.3, standard deviation: 11.8 years; 61.7% female). MetS was diagnosed in 14,202 (31%) by NCEP/ATP III criteria, and 17,216 (37.7%) by JIS criteria. Follow-up was available for 44,620 (97.8%, median duration 15.3 years) patients. MetS was associated with increased mortality risk among the obese (hazard ratio, HR: 1.88 [95% CI, 1.79-1.99] and HR: 1.93 [95% CI 1.82-2.04], according to NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria, respectively) and non-obese individuals (HR: 2.11 [95% CI 1.85-2.40] and 1.7 [95% CI, 1.56-1.85] according to NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria respectively). Obese patients without MetS had a higher mortality risk than non-obese patients without MetS (HR: 1.16 [95% CI 1.10-1.23] and HR: 1.22 [95%CI 1.15-1.30], respectively in subgroups with NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria applied). Conclusions MetS is associated with increased all-cause mortality risk in non-obese and obese patients. In patients without MetS obesity remains significantly associated with mortality. The concept of metabolically healthy obesity should be revised