Despite convergence over time to a similar Markov structure, there are still significant discrepancies between health economic models of RRMS in the United Kingdom. Differing methods, assumptions, and data sources render the comparison of model implementation and results problematic. The commonly used Markov structure leads to problems such as incapability to deal with heterogeneous populations and multiplying complexity with the addition of treatment sequences; these would best be solved by using alternative models such as discrete event simulations.

In conclusion, fingolimod remains cost-effective in HA RRMS following the introduction of DMF to the UK market, and this paper supports the evidence that has led fingolimod to be the only oral DMT reimbursed for HA RRMS in England. This model supports the restriction imposed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on DMF in HA RRMS and highlights the importance of considering different sub-groups of multiple sclerosis when performing health economic analyses.

The DES model shows that only a modest discount to the UK fingolimod list-price is required to make fingolimod a more cost-effective option than natalizumab in RES RRMS.

No abstract

Introduction New requirements in Canada’s pricing processes for patented drugs may exacerbate delays in regulatory and reimbursement reviews. This study seeks to better understand the impact of any additional delays on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients by measuring the following: (a) durations and outcomes of regulatory and reimbursement reviews of NSCLC drugs in Canada and reference countries; (b) delays in Canada’s reviews of three NSCLC drugs (nivolumab, afatinib, and pemetrexed [NAP]); and (c) estimating clinical, patient, and economic impacts of delays in Canada’s reviews on access to NAP. Methods Information from the Context Matters database and the literature (2005–2020) was used to evaluate the durations and outcomes of reimbursement reviews of NSCLC drugs in Canada and comparator countries. Public information was used to assess delays in Canada’s reviews of NAP. Empirical modeling with data from the literature and the Southern Alberta Lung Cancer database was used to estimate the impact of delays in Canada’s NAP reviews on patients (i.e., as losses in person-years of life and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]). Results Regulatory and reimbursement reviews in countries of interest take 12–18 months. In Canada, reviews of NSCLC drugs took 216 days (median), with a 24% rejection rate (mean = 19%). Delays in NAP reviews ranged from 5 to 94 days at Health Canada, 0–80 days at CADTH/pCODR, and 12–797 days in Canadian provinces. These delays may have affected 6400 patients, who lost up to 1740 person-years of life and 1122 QALYs (valued at CA$112 million). Conclusion Changes to Canada’s prescription drug pricing processes may prolong reviews. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40487-022-00187-3.