Good Research Practices for Measuring Drug Costs in Cost Effectiveness Analyses: Issues and Recommendations: The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report—Part I

Abstract

Drug transaction prices not only ration current use of medication but also ration future biomedical research and development. CEA researchers should tailor the appropriate measure of drug costs to the analytic perspective, maintain clarity and transparency on drug cost measurement, and report the sensitivity of CEA results to reasonable drug cost measurement alternatives.

Costo-efectividad de una alternativa para la prestación de servicios de atención primaria en salud para los beneficiarios del Seguro Popular de México

“…Las evaluaciones se realizaron desde una perspectiva modificada del prestador de servicios de salud, quien traslada los costos por atención médica al pagador, 20,21 en este caso al REPSS Hidalgo. Por lo tanto, sólo se consideraron los costos directos por la atención médica.…”

Budget Impact Analysis Highlighting the Cost-Saving Potential of Generic Tenofovir Disoproxil Based Antiretroviral Therapy in Comparison with Tenofovir Alafenamide Based Treatment Regimens in the German Healthcare System

“…All costs were inflated to year 2016 using the consumer price index (CPI) for health [34]. Cost inclusion in the model followed International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) good research practice recommendations as published by Hay et al [35]. Costs and health effects were discounted at the rate of 3% [36].…”

Response to Croteau & Neufeld Editorial: ‘Transition considerations for extended half‐life factor products’

“…The inhibitor titre >0. 6 In the editorial entitled 'Transition considerations for extended half-life factor products', Drs Croteau and Neufeld emphasize the importance of balancing efficacy and cost-effectiveness in making treatment decisions, and suggest that the benefits of a reduced infusion frequency are not sufficient to warrant an increased cost per unit for extended half-life factor products [1]. The authors make a number of assumptions about the transition to using extended half-life factors, but do not fully consider the key components of efficacy, cost, treatment burden, and ease of adherence that undoubtedly impact the decision-making of patients, caregivers, and health-care providers.…”

“…Proper analytical design is crucial in the development of cost-effectiveness models, and should include considerations for treatment price per unit, consumption, and direct and indirect costs. The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force recommends that cost-effectiveness analyses use net drug prices that more accurately reflect true societal drug costs, including various discounts or rebates provided by manufacturers or other adjustments (average discount: 20%-60% of gross list price) [6]. Thus, it is inaccurate for the authors to compare annual costs of treatment using net discounted prices for standard half-life factors and publically available gross list prices for rFVIIIFc and rFIXFc.…”

“…Additionally, to achieve a true comparison, drug costs used in cost-effectiveness analyses must also reflect different dosing regimens and use patterns in the real world, rather than simply relying on the respective product package inserts [6]. In their evaluation of considerations for transitioning to extended half-life products, the authors compared the typical dosing regimens for standard half-life products in their own single practice in the United States (U.S.) with the regimens for rFVIIIFc and rFIXFc outlined in the respective U.S. FDA-approved package inserts (i.e.…”