Linked Pharmacometric-Pharmacoeconomic Modeling and Simulation in Clinical Drug Development

Market access and pricing of pharmaceuticals are increasingly contingent on the ability to demonstrate comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. As such, it is widely recognized that predictions of the economic potential of drug candidates in development could inform decisions across the product life cycle. This may be challenging when safety and efficacy profiles in terms of the relevant clinical outcomes are unknown or highly uncertain early in product development. Linking pharmacometrics and pharmacoeconomics, such that outputs from pharmacometric models serve as inputs to pharmacoeconomic models, may provide a framework for extrapolating from early-phase studies to predict economic outcomes and characterize decision uncertainty. This article reviews the published studies that have implemented this methodology and used simulation to inform drug development decisions and/or to optimize the use of drug treatments. Some of the key practical issues involved in linking pharmacometrics and pharmacoeconomics, including the choice of final outcome measures, methods of incorporating evidence on comparator treatments, approaches to handling multiple intermediate end points, approaches to quantifying uncertainty, and issues of model validation are also discussed. Finally, we have considered the potential barriers that may have limited the adoption of this methodology and suggest that closer alignment between the disciplines of clinical pharmacology, pharmacometrics, and pharmacoeconomics, may help to realize the potential benefits associated with linked pharmacometric-pharmacoeconomic modeling and simulation

The Use of Decision–Analytic Models in Atopic Eczema: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to identify and assess the quality of published economic decision–analytic models within atopic eczema against best practice guidelines, with the intention of informing future decision–analytic models within this condition. Methods: A systematic search of the following online databases was performed: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, Scopus, Health Technology Assessment, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Science. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they described a decision–analytic model evaluating both the costs and benefits associated with an intervention or prevention for atopic eczema. Data were extracted using a standardised form by two independent reviewers, whilst quality was assessed using the model-specific Philips criteria. Results: Twenty-four models were identified, evaluating either preventions (n = 12) or interventions (n = 12): 14 reported using a Markov modelling approach, four utilised decision trees and one a discrete event simulation, whilst five did not specify the approach. The majority, 22 studies, reported that the intervention was dominant or cost effective, given the assumptions and analytical perspective taken. Notably, the models tended to be short-term (16 used a time horizon of ≤1 year), often providing little justification for the limited time horizon chosen. The methodological and reporting quality of the studies was generally weak, with only seven studies fulfilling more than 50% of their applicable Philips criteria. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review of decision models in eczema. Whilst the majority of models reported favourable outcomes in terms of the cost effectiveness of the new intervention, the usefulness of these findings for decision-making is questionable. In particular, there is considerable scope for increasing the range of interventions evaluated, for improving modelling structures and reporting quality

Cost effectiveness of support for people starting a new medication for a long term condition through community pharmacies: an economic evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) compared with normal practice

Background: The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost-effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Methods: We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients’ non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource-use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted-life-year(QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon. Results: NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95%CI: 0.00, 0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of -£144 (95%CI: -769, 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with probability of 0.78 (ICER: - £3166 per QALY). NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost-effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness-to-pay of £20000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost-effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness-to-pay of £20000 per QALY. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the New Medicine Service increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics after repeated subcutaneous administration of three gonadotrophin preparations

Contains fulltext : 24644___.PDF (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Follicular development after 7-days subcutaneous administration of Normegon, Follegon and Metrodin-HP

Item does not contain fulltex

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Germany: An Application of the Efficiency Frontier

Background: To assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in Germany, the efficiency frontier (EF) method has been developed. We compared the cost-effectiveness analysis using international standards and the German methodology, using the heart failure drug sacubitril/valsartan as an example. Methods: A previously developed Markov model was adapted to include 4 treatment options: no treatment, enalapril, candesartan, and sacubitril/valsartan. The internationally used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Additionally, EFs, net monetary benefits (NMBs), and price-acceptability curves were created according to German guidelines. All analyses were performed from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. Results: The base-case ICER for sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is (sic)19 300/quality-adjusted life-year. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, sacubitril/valsartan is most likely to be cost-effective, out of all included comparators, from a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of (sic)18 250/quality-adjusted life-year onward. No EF could be constructed for the base case. Taking the uncertainty of the input parameters into account for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a NMB of around -(sic)14 000 was calculated, depending on the outcome considered, with the NMB being zero at a daily price for sacubitril/valsartan ranging from (sic)1.52 to (sic)1.67. Conclusion: We calculated an ICER for Germany, comparable to previously published cost-effectiveness analyses for Europe, which widely concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be cost-effective. Using the German EF approach, a considerable discount needs to be applied before sacubitril/valsartan can be considered cost-effective