Use of Health Technology Assessment for the Continued Funding of Health Technologies: The Case of Immunoglobulins for the Management of Multifocal Motor Neuropathy.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Constanza Vargas, Rebecca Addo, Milena Lewandowska, Philip Haywood, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Stephen Goodall
{"title":"Use of Health Technology Assessment for the Continued Funding of Health Technologies: The Case of Immunoglobulins for the Management of Multifocal Motor Neuropathy.","authors":"Constanza Vargas, Rebecca Addo, Milena Lewandowska, Philip Haywood, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Stephen Goodall","doi":"10.1007/s40258-023-00853-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Funding decisions for many health technologies occur without undergoing health technology assessment (HTA), in particular, without assessment of cost effectiveness (CE). Immunoglobulins in Australia are an interesting case study because they have been used for a long time for various rare disorders and their price is publicly available. Undertaking an HTA enables us to assess CE for an intervention for which there is limited clinical and economic evidence. This study presents a post-market review to assess the CE of immunoglobulins for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) compared with best supportive care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Markov model was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Input sources included randomised controlled trials, single-arm studies, the Australian clinical criteria for MMN, clinical guidelines, previous Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) reports and inputs from clinical experts. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the CE results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cost per patient of treating MMN with immunoglobulin was AU$275,853 versus AU$26,191when no treatment was provided, with accrued QALYs of 6.83 versus 6.04, respectively. The latter translated into a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$317,552/QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the utility weights and the price of immunoglobulins. MSAC advised to continue funding of immunoglobulins on the grounds of efficacy, despite the high and uncertain ICER.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Beyond the ICER framework, other factors were acknowledged, including the high clinical need in a patient population for which there are no other active treatments available. This case study highlights the challenges of conducting HTA for already funded interventions, and the efficiency trade-offs required to fund effective high-cost therapies in rare conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00853-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Funding decisions for many health technologies occur without undergoing health technology assessment (HTA), in particular, without assessment of cost effectiveness (CE). Immunoglobulins in Australia are an interesting case study because they have been used for a long time for various rare disorders and their price is publicly available. Undertaking an HTA enables us to assess CE for an intervention for which there is limited clinical and economic evidence. This study presents a post-market review to assess the CE of immunoglobulins for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) compared with best supportive care.

Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Input sources included randomised controlled trials, single-arm studies, the Australian clinical criteria for MMN, clinical guidelines, previous Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) reports and inputs from clinical experts. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the CE results.

Results: The cost per patient of treating MMN with immunoglobulin was AU$275,853 versus AU$26,191when no treatment was provided, with accrued QALYs of 6.83 versus 6.04, respectively. The latter translated into a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$317,552/QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the utility weights and the price of immunoglobulins. MSAC advised to continue funding of immunoglobulins on the grounds of efficacy, despite the high and uncertain ICER.

Conclusions: Beyond the ICER framework, other factors were acknowledged, including the high clinical need in a patient population for which there are no other active treatments available. This case study highlights the challenges of conducting HTA for already funded interventions, and the efficiency trade-offs required to fund effective high-cost therapies in rare conditions.

Abstract Image

利用卫生技术评估继续资助卫生技术:免疫球蛋白治疗多灶性运动神经病变的案例。
导言:许多卫生技术的资助决定是在没有进行卫生技术评估(HTA),特别是没有评估成本效益(CE)的情况下做出的。澳大利亚的免疫球蛋白是一个有趣的案例研究,因为它们已经被用于治疗各种罕见的疾病很长时间了,而且它们的价格是公开的。开展HTA使我们能够对临床和经济证据有限的干预措施进行CE评估。本研究对免疫球蛋白治疗多灶性运动神经病变(MMN)与最佳支持治疗的疗效进行了上市后评价。方法:采用马尔科夫模型估算成本和质量调整寿命年(QALYs)。输入来源包括随机对照试验、单臂研究、澳大利亚MMN临床标准、临床指南、以前的医疗服务咨询委员会(MSAC)报告和临床专家的输入。进行敏感性分析以评估CE结果的不确定性和稳健性。结果:使用免疫球蛋白治疗MMN的每位患者的费用为275,853澳元,而未提供治疗时为26,191澳元,累计质量aly分别为6.83澳元和6.04澳元。后者转化为高增量成本效益比(ICER)为317,552澳元/QALY。ICER对免疫球蛋白的效用权重和价格最为敏感。尽管ICER高且不确定,但MSAC建议基于疗效继续资助免疫球蛋白。结论:在ICER框架之外,其他因素也得到了承认,包括患者群体的高临床需求,而没有其他有效的治疗方法。本案例研究强调了对已获得资助的干预措施进行HTA的挑战,以及为罕见疾病提供有效的高成本治疗所需的效率权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信