Cost of clinical events in health economic evaluations in Germany: a systematic review

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Volker Ulrich²  Karl J Krobot³  Narine Sahakyan³  Monika Scheuringer¹ 

[1] Outcomes Research Department, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, Germany;Department of Law and Economics, Institute of Public Finance, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany;Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT- University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria

关键词: Health economics;    Germany;    Diabetes mellitus;    Costs;   

Others  :  810902
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-7547-10-7

 received in 2011-08-04, accepted in 2012-04-14,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Guidance from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) on cost estimation in cost–benefit assessments in Germany acknowledges the need for standardization of costing methodology. The objective of this review was to assess current methods for deriving clinical event costs in German economic evaluations. A systematic literature search of 24 databases (including MEDLINE, BIOSIS, the Cochrane Library and Embase) identified articles, published between January 2005 and October 2009, which reported cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Studies assessed German patients and evaluated at least one of 11 predefined clinical events relevant to patients with diabetes mellitus. A total of 21 articles, describing 199 clinical cost events, met the inclusion criteria. Year of costing and time horizon were available for 194 (97%) and 163 (82%) cost events, respectively. Cost components were rarely specified (32 [16%]). Costs were generally based on a single literature source (140 [70%]); where multiple sources were cited (32 [16%]), data synthesis methodology was not reported. Cost ranges for common events, assessed using a Markov model with a cycle length of 12 months, were: acute myocardial infarction (nine studies), first year, 4,618–17,556 €; follow-up years, 1,006–3,647 €; and stroke (10 studies), first year; 10,149–24,936 €; follow-up years, 676–7,337 €. These results demonstrate that costs for individual clinical events vary substantially in German health economic evaluations, and that there is a lack of transparency and consistency in the methods used to derive them. The validity and comparability of economic evaluations would be improved by guidance on standardizing costing methodology for individual clinical events.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Scheuringer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1 .

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Working Paper: Cost Estimation. [http://www.iqwig.de/cost-benefit-assessment.736.en.html webcite]
• [2]Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analyses. Appendix L: Estimating the Present Value of Costs and Health Outcomes. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing: Canberra, Australia; Department of Health and Aging 2002.
• [3]Jacobs P, Roos NP: Standard cost lists for healthcare in Canada. Issues in validity and inter-provincial consolidation. PharmacoEconomics 1999, 15:551-560.
• [4]A guidance document for the cost process. Version 1.0 [http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/costing_e.pdf webcite]
• [5]Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF: Standardisation of costs: the Dutch Manual for Costing in economic evaluations. PharmacoEconomics 2002, 20:443-454.
• [6]Krauth C, Hessel F, Hansmeier T, Wasem J, Seitz R, Schweikert B: Empirical standard costs for health economic evaluation in Germany – a proposal by the working group methods in health economic evaluation [in German]. Gesundheitswesen 2005, 67:736-746.
• [7]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:264-269. W264
• [8]Annemans L, Lamotte M, Kubin M, Evers T, Verheugt FW: Which patients should receive aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease? An economic evaluation. Int J Clin Pract 2006, 60:1129-1137.
• [9]Berg J, Lindgren P, Spiesser J, Parry D, Jönsson B: Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation: a European model based on the CLARITY and COMMIT trials. Clin Ther 2007, 29:1184-1202.
• [10]Berg J, Fidan D, Lindgren P: Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention: a European model based on a meta-analysis of the PCI-CURE, CREDO and PCI-CLARITY trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2008, 24:2089-2101.
• [11]Berger K, Hessel F, Kreuzer J, Smala A, Diener HC: Clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with atherothrombosis: CAPRIE-based calculation of cost-effectiveness for Germany. Curr Med Res Opin 2008, 24:267-274.
• [12]Brüggenjürgen B, Lindgren P, Ehlken B, Rupprecht HJ, Willich SN: Long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2007, 8:51-57.
• [13]Claes C, Mittendorf T, Grond M, Graf von der Schulenburg J-M: Incremental cost-effectiveness of aspirin + dipyridamole in the secondary prevention of ischemic, non-cardioembolic stroke. Med Klin 2008, 103:778-787.
• [14]Gandjour A, Stock S: A national hypertension treatment program in Germany and its estimated impact on costs, life expectancy, and cost-effectiveness. Health Policy 2007, 83:257-267.
• [15]Jürgensen JS, Arns W, Haß B: Cost-effectiveness of immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplant recipients in Germany: a model approach. Eur J Health Econ 2009, 11:15-25.
• [16]Lamotte M, Annemans L, Evers T, Kubin M: A multi-country economic evaluation of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. PharmacoEconomics 2006, 24:155-169.
• [17]Lamotte M, Annemans L, Kawalec P, Zoellner Y: A multi-country health economic evaluation of highly concentrated N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction. PharmacoEconomics 2006, 24:783-795.
• [18]Liebl A, Lüddeke H-J, Kotowa W, Maclaine G, Evers T: Cost-effectiveness for acarbose therapy of patients with impaired glucose intolerance [in German]. Gesundh okon Qual manag 2006, 11:105-111.
• [19]Mittendorf T, Smith-Palmer J, Timlin L, Happich M, Goodall G: Evaluation of exenatide vs. insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes: cost-effectiveness analysis in the German setting. Diabetes Obes Metab 2009, 11:1068-1079.
• [20]Neeser K, Erny-Albrecht K, Völler H, Weber C: Anticoagulation with oral vitamin K antagonists in high-risk patients: clinical and economic benefits of adequate prevention. J Kardiol 2006, 13:313-320.
• [21]Rasch A, Greiner W: Health economic model of smoking cessation with varenicline [in German]. Suchtmed 2009, 11:47-55.
• [22]Rosery H, Bergemann R, Marx SE, Boehnke A, Melnick J, Sterz R, Williams L: Health-economic comparison of paricalcitol, calcitriol and alfacalcidol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism during haemodialysis. Clin Drug Investig 2006, 26:629-638.
• [23]Roze S, Valentine WJ, Evers T, Palmer AJ: Acarbose in addition to existing treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes: health economic analysis in a German setting. Curr Med Res Opin 2006, 22:1415-1424.
• [24]Schaufler TM: Cost-effectiveness of preventive screening programmes for type 2 diabetes mellitus in Germany [in German]. Gesundh okon Qual manag 2009, 14:71-75.
• [25]Scherbaum WA, Goodall G, Erny-Albrecht KM, Massi-Benedetti M, Erdmann E, Valentine WJ: Cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes patients with a history of macrovascular disease: a German perspective. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009, 7:9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Schwander B, Gradl B, Zöllner Y, Lindgren P, Diener HC, Lüders S, Schrader J, Villar FA, Greiner W, Jönsson B: Cost-utility analysis of eprosartan compared to enalapril in primary prevention and nitrendipine in secondary prevention in Europe–the HEALTH model. Value Health 2009, 12:857-871.
• [27]Valentine WJ, Goodall G, Aagren M, Nielsen S, Palmer AJ, Erny-Albrecht K: Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of therapy conversion to insulin detemir in patients with type 2 diabetes in Germany: a modelling study of long-term clinical and cost outcomes. Adv Ther 2008, 25:567-584.
• [28]Weber C, Neeser K, Schneider B, Lodwig V: Self-measurement of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes: a health economic assessment. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2007, 1:676-684.
• [29]Ray JA, Valentine WJ, Secnik K, Oglesby AK, Cordony A, Gordois A, Davey P, Palmer AJ: Review of the cost of diabetes complications in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Curr Med Res Opin 2005, 21:1617-1629.
• [30]Hutter F, Antonanzas F: Economic evaluations in the EURONHEED: a comparative analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2009, 27:561-570.
• [31]NHS Reference Costs 2008–2009. UK Department of Health London 2010.
• [32]Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf webcite]
• [33]Unit costs of health and social care 2009. [http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc/uc2009/uc2009.pdf webcite]
• [34]Ridyard CH, Hughes DA: Methods for the collection of resource use data within clinical trials: A systematic review of studies funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment Program. Value Health 2010, 13:867-872.
• [35]Scheuringer M, Krobot KJ: Development of cost catalogs for cost-effectiveness analyses in Gemany: results of a feasibility study. Value Health 2009, 12:A389.