Determination of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of antitumor drugs


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Introduction. To determine and establish the reference value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) are an urgent issue of improving the procedure for the integrated assessment of drugs when making decisions on their inclusion in the lists of drugs for medical use. In accordance with the requirements of the RF Government Decree No. 871, if the proposed drug is characterized by greater efficiency and higher cost than the comparison drug, the results of clinical and economic studies should be presented as cost-effectiveness ratios for the proposed and comparison drugs, as well as an ICER indicator. However, it is necessary to determine the standard value with which the ICER of the drug proposed to be included in these lists would be compared in the future. To analyze previously made decisions is one possible approach to determining the reference value of ICER. Objective: to calculate and analyze ICERs of antitumor drugs proposed for inclusion in the list of vital and essential drugs (VED) for 2018. Material and methods. The ICERs of antitumor drugs (ATC code L01) already included in the 2018 VED list, as well as those of antitumor drugs not approved for inclusion in this list, were analyzed. Results. The median ICER of antitumor drugs included in the 2018 VED list per QALY for the Russian Federation is 7,494,944.00 rubles. The ICER per QALY for antitumor drugs not included in the 2018 VED list varies from 2,414,634.15 to 12,164,322.73 rubles. Conclusion. The analysis revealed a significant scatter in the ICERs of drugs included in the 2018 VED list. There were also cases when the ICERs of drugs included in the VED list exceed those of drugs not approved for inclusion in this list. To more accurately determine the reference ICER for the Russian Federation, there is a need for further studies calculating the ICERs for antitumor and other drugs previously included in the VED list.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Tat'jana Sergeevna Teptsova

Center of Healthcare Expertise and Quality Control, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: tatteptsova@gmail.com
Chief Specialist of the Department for Methodological Support for Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies in Healthcare

Kristina Andreevna Perova

Center of Healthcare Expertise and Quality Control, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: chris.perowa@gmail.com
Specialist of the department of methodological support for conducting a comprehensive assessment of technologies in healthcare CEQCMC

Nuriya Zagitovna Musina

Center of Healthcare Expertise and Quality Control, Ministry of Health of Russia; Saint Petersburg State Chemopharmaceutical University; Institute of Applied Economic Research; Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education

Email: nuriyamusina@gmail.com
Associate Professorof the Department of Management and Farmacoeconomics of the Saint Petersburg State Chemical Pharmaceutical University; Head of the Development and Communications Department of CEQCMC; Scientific Director of the Laboratory for Assessment of Technologies in Health Care, Institute of Applied Economic Research (IAER), Associate Professorof the Department of Economics, Management and Health Technology Assessment of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education (RMACPE)

Vitaliy Vladimirovich Omelyanovsky

Center of Healthcare Expertise and Quality Control, Ministry of Health of Russia; Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education; Finance Research Institute

Email: office@rosmedex.ru
General Manager CEQCMC; Head of the Health Care Finance Center, Financial Research Institute (FRI); Head of the Department of Economics, Management and Assessment of Health Technologies RMACPE, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor.

Georgiy Rubenovich Khachatryan

Center of Healthcare Expertise and Quality Control, Ministry of Health of Russia; Institute of Applied Economic Research; Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education; Finance Research Institute

Email: khachatryan-george@ya.ru
Head of the Department for Methodological Support for Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies in Healthcare CEQCMC; Research Fellow, Health Technology Assessment Laboratory IAER; Assistant at the Department of Economics, Management and Assessment of Health Technologies RMACPE; Junior Research Fellow, Center for Health Finance FRI.

References

  1. Постановление Правительства РФ от 28.08.2014 №871 (ред. от 12.08.2020) «Об утверждении Правил формирования перечней лекарственных препаратов для медицинского применения и минимального ассортимента лекарственных препаратов, необходимых для оказания медицинской помощи».
  2. Методические рекомендации по проведению сравнительной клинико-экономической оценки лекарственного препарата. М.: «ЦЭККМП», 2016; 20.
  3. Безденежных Т.П., Мусина Н.З., Федяева В.К. и др. Анализ подходов к определению порогов готовности платить за технологии здравоохранения, установление их предельной величины на примере стран с развитой системой оценки технологий здравоохранения. Фармакоэкономика. Современная фармакоэкономика и фармакоэпидемиология. 2018; 11 (4): 73-80. doi: 10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.4.073-080
  4. Омельяновский В.В., Авксентьева М.В., Сура М.В. и др. Подходы к формированию единой методики расчета инкрементных показателей «затраты/эффективность» на примере противоопухолевых препаратов в рамках пересмотра перечней лекарственных препаратов для медицинского применения. Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор. 2018; 1 (31): 10-20.
  5. Brahmer J., Reckamp K.L., Baas P. et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 373 (2): 123-35. DOI: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1504627
  6. Herbst R.S., Baas P., Kim D.W. et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387 (10027): 1540-50. DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(15)01281-7
  7. Soria J.C., Felip E., Cobo M. et al. Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16 (8): 897-907. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00006-6
  8. Dimopoulos M.A., Goldschmidt H., Niesvizky R. et al. Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18 (10): 1327-37. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30578-8
  9. Van Cutsem E., Joulain F., Hoff P.M. et al. Aflibercept Plus FOLFIRI vs. Placebo Plus FOLFIRI in Second-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Post Hoc Analysis of Survival from the Phase III VELOUR Study Subsequent to Exclusion of Patients who had Recurrence During or Within 6 Months of Completing Adjuvant Oxaliplatin-Based Therapy. Target Oncol. 2016; 11 (3): 383-400. doi: 10.1007/s11523-015-0402-9
  10. de Bono J.S., Oudard S., Ozguroglu M. et al. Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: a randomised open-label trial. Lancet. 2010; 376 (9747): 1147-54. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61389-X
  11. Motzer R.J., Escudier B., McDermott D.F. et al. Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 373 (19): 1803-13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510665.
  12. Swain S.M., Baselga J., Kim S.B. et al. Pertuzumab, trastu-zumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 372 (8): 724-34. DOI: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1413513
  13. McArthur G.A., Chapman P.B., Robert C. et al. Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAF (V600E) and BRAF (V600K) mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15 (3): 323-32. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70012-9
  14. Motzer R.J., Hutson T.E., Glen H. et al. Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16 (15): 1473-82. DOI: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(15)00290-9
  15. Guan Z., Xu B., DeSilvio M.L. et al. Randomized trial of lapatinib versus placebo added to paclitaxel in the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013; 31 (16): 1947-53. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.5241
  16. Newcomer K.E., Hatry H.P., Wholey J.S. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. Handbook of practical program evaluation. 2015; 636.
  17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the processes of technology appraisal. April 2018. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/ About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisals/ technology-appraisal-processes-guide-apr-2018.pdf (circulation date: 30.09.2020).
  18. Европейский опросник оценки качества жизни EuroQol [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://euroqol.org/ (circulation date: 30.09.2020).
  19. EQ-5D-5L Utility Index for different countries. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://bbs.ceb-institute.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/04/1_2_BBS-EQ-5D-5L-2018-04-17-Gerlinger. pdf (circulation date: 30.09.2020).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2021 Russkiy Vrach Publishing House

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies