Journal of market access & health policy最新文献

At least since the Age of Enlightenment, good health has been a tenet for society. Healthy societies could learn better, work harder, improve their wealth, and live longer. Today societies focus on life expectancy, as we value long and healthy lives. As illustrated by the provision of COVID-19 vaccines first for the elderly, societies value life-saving actions. Paradoxically, health economic assessments conventionally devalue long-lasting health through the practice of discounting health benefits along with costs. However, health, with its intrinsic and instrumental characteristics, is not synonymous with money cash, a tradeable asset that devalues with time. If improving healthy life expectancy is a societal ambition, it seems counter-intuitive to value future health less as a result of an artificial mathematical construct when evaluating economically new medical interventions. In this paper, we investigate the application of discounting health in healthcare and consider paradoxical findings, especially in relation to disease prevention with vaccination. We argue that there is no economically sustainable argument to discount health gains, except for the benefit of the payer with a goal of spending less on life-saving products. If that is the objective for discounting health, there are other means to achieve the same goal in a more transparent and simpler way. From the long-term perspective of healthcare development, not discounting health gains would encourage research that values long-term effects. This in turn has the potential to benefit the investor, the payer, and the patient/consumer, improving the situation from multiple perspectives.

Objective: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are first-line therapy for stroke prevention for 1.4 million atrial fibrillation (AF) patients in the UK. However, the rates of DOAC dosing below evidence-based recommendations are estimated between 9% and 22%. This study explores specific patient and physician factors associated with prescribing inappropriate DOAC underdoses.

Methods: DOAC-prescribing physicians within the UK completed both a clinical vignette survey, which contained 12 hypothetical patient profiles designed to replicate DOAC prescribing scenarios, and a physician survey to capture sociodemographic, clinical experience, and prescriber-related beliefs and motivations related to DOAC prescribing. Eight patient factors based on a literature search and an expert consultation process were varied within the vignettes. Associations between the prescribers' dosing choices and patient factors were explored via multilevel logistic regression. The analysis is focused on the most frequently selected DOACs, apixaban and rivaroxaban, both of which have different dosing guidelines.

Results: In all, 336 prescribers (69% male; 233/336) completed the survey, mostly general physicians (GPs) (45%) or cardiology specialists (36%) with a mean of 17.9 years' experience. Most prescribers (73%; 244/336) inappropriately underdosed at least once; rates between GPs and specialists were nearly identical. Patient factors most strongly associated with apixaban inappropriate underdosing included a history of major bleeding and falls. For rivaroxaban, these were major bleeding and severe frailty. Only 32% (106/335) of prescribers reported DOAC dosing guidelines as the sole influence on their prescribing behaviour. Among prescribers who did not inappropriately underdose, greater prescribing confidence was aligned to increased perception of inappropriate underdose risk.

Conclusions: Overall, patient factors such as major bleeding and severe frailty were found to be associated with inappropriate underdosing of apixaban and rivaroxaban. Furthermore, prescribers who were more confident in DOAC prescribing, and were more worried about the risk of stroke, were significantly less likely to inappropriately underdose. These findings suggest that all prescribers, regardless of speciality, may benefit from education and training to raise awareness of the risks associated with inappropriate DOAC underdosing.

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Background: The benefits of preventive interventions lack comprehensive evaluation in standard health technology assessments (HTA), particularly for rare and transmissible diseases. Objective: To identify possible considerations for future HTA using analogies between the treatment and prevention of rare diseases. Study design: An Expert panel meeting assessed whether one HTA assessment framework can be applied to assess both rare disease treatments and preventive interventions. Experts also evaluated the range of value elements currently included in HTAs and their applicability to rare, transmissible, and/or preventable diseases. Results: A broad range of value should be considered when assessing rare, transmissible disease prevention. Although standard HTA can be applied to transmissible diseases, the risk of local outbreaks and the need for large-scale prevention programs suggest a modified assessment framework, capable of incorporating prevention-specific value elements in HTAs. A 'Rule of Prevention' framework was proposed to allow broader value considerations anchored to severity, equity, and prevention benefits in decision-making for preventive interventions for rare transmissible diseases. Conclusion: The proposed prevention framework introduces an explicit initial approach to consistently assess rare transmissible diseases, and to incorporate the broader value of preventive interventions compared with treatment.

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews. Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included. Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance. Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.

Background: Gene replacement therapy (GRT) is a treatment method used to combat or prevent various diseases. Its high one-off cost constitutes a major obstacle for successful market access. This paper aims to assess and discuss the applicability of amortization in models, such as cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) and budget impact models (BIMs) informing HTA recommendations and reimbursement decisions.

Methods and findings: A hypothetical CEA and BIA were considered. The objective was to compare the GRT with and without amortization. A straight-line amortization model was used. The CEM and BIM were considered and assessed based on two set of scenarios: considering different amortization duration or different discounting rate. The impact of amortization against the total cost of gene therapy was assessed for all the scenarios. The cost difference between GRT with and without amortization in relation to its total cost was -$58,855, thus amortization does not have a significant impact on the results and conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis. For BIM in the base case, amortization had no impact on the results.

Conclusion: Amortization has negligible impact on the results of CEM and total BIM and no impact on the conclusions from the model. One exception is the budget impact in case of an amortization period longer than the time horizon of BIM, where a half of the GRT price is moved beyond the model time horizon. Amortization has a distinguishing effect from an accounting perspective, but it does not have any implication for payers.