Future drug prices and cost-effectiveness analyses

被引:41
|
作者
Hoyle, Martin [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Plymouth, Peninsula Med Sch, PenTAG, Exeter EX2 5DW, Devon, England
[2] Univ Exeter, Peninsula Med Sch, PenTAG, Exeter, Devon, England
关键词
D O I
10.2165/00019053-200826070-00006
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses worldwide assume that the price of any single drug increases with inflation. New guidance from the Pharmaceutical Management Agency in New Zealand suggests that, when it is known that a generic drug will be available in the near future, a best estimate of the lower price of the generic should be included in the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis. Furthermore, in the sensitivity analysis, the real prices of the new and comparator drugs should be deflated by 2% per year as a proxy for inflation. Objectives: To challenge the widespread assumption that the price of any single drug increases with inflation in the UK, and to calculate the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using a more realistic estimate for the future price of individual drugs. Methods: The change in the real price of 373 drugs in the UK over the period 1980-2006 was calculated. Only those drugs launched after 1984 and with more than 500 prescriptions per year were analysed. A linear model of the change in real price by drug was fitted as a function of launch year, number of prescriptions, and British National Formulary (BNF) section. Results: The mean annual decrease in the real price of individual drugs was 3.8% (95% CI 3.4, 4.2), with a standard deviation of 2.5%. Using this value, drugs would generally appear more cost effective than as presently calculated, i.e. the ICER would generally fall. The ICER would fall substantially for drugs for chronic conditions, e.g. by 15%, from 61 pound 900 to 52 pound 700 per QALY (year 2004 values) for cinacalcet for hyperparathyroidism. It is predicted that the ratio would fall even more for longer-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis. Conclusions: Most of the drugs previously appraised by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) are actually more cost effective than stated by NICE. Furthermore, most or all drugs for chronic conditions are actually far more cost effective than stated by NICE. Hence, it is likely that some of the previous negative decisions made by NICE concerning drugs for chronic conditions would instead have been positive if the methodology in this study had been implemented. It is recommended that, to capture the true cost of a drug, UK-based cost-effectiveness analyses should assume that the future real cost of a drug decreases over time, typically by 4% per annum, with a standard deviation of 2.5%. This change is very easy to implement in cost-effectiveness analyses. Similar conclusions may apply worldwide.
引用
收藏
页码:589 / 602
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Future Drug Prices and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
    Martin Hoyle
    [J]. PharmacoEconomics, 2008, 26 : 589 - 602
  • [2] Accounting for the Drug Life Cycle and Future Drug Prices in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Hoyle, Martin
    [J]. PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2011, 29 (01) : 1 - 15
  • [3] Accounting for the Drug Life Cycle and Future Drug Prices in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Martin Hoyle
    [J]. PharmacoEconomics, 2011, 29 : 1 - 15
  • [4] Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future
    Linda M. de Vries
    Pieter H. M. van Baal
    Werner B. F. Brouwer
    [J]. PharmacoEconomics, 2019, 37 : 119 - 130
  • [5] Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future
    de Vries, Linda M.
    van Baal, Pieter H. M.
    Brouwer, Werner B. F.
    [J]. PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2019, 37 (02) : 119 - 130
  • [6] Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine
    Neumann, Peter J.
    Kim, David D.
    Trikalinos, Thomas A.
    Sculpher, Mark J.
    Salomon, Joshua A.
    Prosser, Lisa A.
    Owens, Douglas K.
    Meltzer, David O.
    Kuntz, Karen M.
    Krahn, Murray
    Feeny, David
    Basu, Anirban
    Russell, Louise B.
    Siegel, Joanna E.
    Ganiats, Theodore G.
    Sanders, Gillian D.
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2018, 38 (07) : 767 - 777
  • [7] Drug Prices After Patent Expirations in High-Income Countries and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
    Serra-Burriel, Miquel
    Martin-Bassols, Nicolau
    Perenyi, Gellert
    Vokinger, Kerstin N.
    [J]. JAMA HEALTH FORUM, 2024, 5 (08):
  • [8] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES
    STEINBERG, EP
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1995, 332 (02): : 123 - 123
  • [9] The "e" In Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Efficacy Or Effectiveness Of Asthma Medications Used In Cost-Effectiveness Analyses?
    Dilokthornsakul, P.
    Chaiyakunapruk, N.
    Campbell, J. D.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2015, 191
  • [10] ACCOUNTING FOR THE DRUG LIFE CYCLE AND FUTURE DRUG PRICES IN COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
    Hoyle, M.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (07) : A233 - A233