1
Qualità della Vita Legata allo Stato di Salute in
Farmacoeconomia
Luciana Scalone
Centro di FarmacoeconomiaUniversità degli Studi di Milano
Problem
• Needs are unlimited• resources are limited• Resources allocated (devoted) to an intervention can
not be allocated to another one• Somebody has to decide which interventions will be
financed and the priorities
2
Trends
Increase of health care expenditure, incompatiblewith the increase of GDP (last two decades)
REASONS• Population ageing• Increase of expectacies• Modern technologies, more effective and more costly• Intercations between these aspects
Population ageing
Proportion of people aged > 60 years (%)36
21
35 3330 29 28
2018 19
2217
ITALY GERMANY JAPAN FRANCE UK USA
19902030
3
Approaches to the problem
Rationing vs Rationalising(cost containment) (maximun outcome from
available resources)
• Rationing: Uni-dimensioanl task because the expenditure is the only target variable
• Ratioanlising: bi-dimensional task because costs are referred to outcomes
EconomicsEconomics isis... ... ““... ... study of how societies use scarce resources to
produce valuable commodities and distribute them among different people””
PaulPaul A A SamuelsonSamuelson, Nobel Laureate 1970, Nobel Laureate 1970
4
maximizingutility resourceslimitedapplicable to alternative uses
Economics
Pharmaco-
application to the pharmaceuticalcontext of
-Economics
•Maximization•Utility•Resources•Scarcity•Alternative uses
Pharmacoeconomics
5
Pharmacoeconomics
It is a research method that estimatesthe costs and the outcomes of medical
technologies to comparealternative approaches, at least one
concerning drug therapy
Key elements
• COSTS• EFFECTS• ALTERNATIVES• PERSPECTIVE• TECHNIQUE• TIME HORIZON• SENSITIVITY
6
CostsCosts and and EffectsEffects of of anan InterventionIntervention
CCC EEE
++ =+ +
Costs and effectsCosts and effects
7
Costs and Effects
Direct
Indirect
Intangible
Not medical
medical
Alternatives
• Pharmacological• Not Pharmacological• No intevention
8
Perspective
• Third-party payer• Services supplyers• Patient
Society
Techniques
• Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)• Cost Minimization Analysis (CMA)• Cost Utility Analysis (CUA)• Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
9
Clinical parametersSurvival
LYS/LYG
Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA)
Quality adjusted life yearsQALY’s
Cost utility analysis (CUA)
10
Cost benefit analysis (CBA)
Possible results
Effe
ct
Evaluate
REFUSE
ACCEPT(dominant)
Evaluate
-
-Cost+
11
Cost-benefit analysis ’70s, criticismCost-effectiveness analysis ’80s, life expectancyCost-utility analysis ’90s, quality of life, utilitiesCost-benefit analysis going beyond health outcomes
Techniques
• Before 70s the tool most commonly used was CBA, but concerns were raised over whether it was ethical and possible to value human life in monetary terms. This led to the adoption of the CEA
• In 80s an extension of CEA was promoted, to consider not just the “quantity of life” but also the “quality” of that life (QALYs). The focus of QALYs was anyway on health outcomes
• In 90s a debate began concerning the inclusion of non health outcomes (waiting time, location of treatment). This led to the reintroduction of CBA
12
Quality of Life
• In the past, the most important objective in healthcare was the recovery from the diseases and the survival
Quality of Life
13
• As a result of successful technologies, years have been added to the life of individuals
• As a result of higher life expectancy, the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases suchas cancer, CVD and dementia have beenincreasing
• People often live with these conditions for manyyears
Quality of Life
• People, in general healthier and wealthier than in the past, have higher expectations: they expectmore than just being alive
• So, more people live longer, but perhaps some of them might feel their longer life is not worthliving!
Quality of Life
14
Definition of Quality of Life (QoL)
• Difficult. The most widely used definition is the one by the World Health Organization (The WHOQOL Group, 1995):
“ QoL is individuals’ perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, concerns. …term incorporating physical health, psychological state, level of indipendence, social relationships”
Definition of Quality of Life (QoL)
15
• The impact of an accident/disease and of the relatedtreatment on involved individuals’ QoL
Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is
• The interest in measuring QoL in health care hasincreased in last 2 decades
• Many instruments have been developed and used
16
Instruments
• Generic vs Specific• Indexes vs profiles• Self administered, interview, proxy responders• Paper, computer based• etc
Instruments
• Generic vs Specific• Indexes vs profiles• Self administered, interview, proxy responders• Paper, computer based• etc
17
Instruments
• Generic vs SpecificGeneric instruments: evaluate HRQoL as a whole.
Appliable to a wide range of different people withdifferent type and severity of diseases, different cultures. Useful for comparinsons and decision-making acrossdifferent diseases and interventions
Specific instruments: have been developed on specificgroups. They focus on the phenomenon of interest, can be more sensitive, more acceptable, do not allowcomparisons
EQ-5D profile
18
EQ-5D VAS
Examples of clinical areas where EQ-5D is used
19
Available language versions
In which countries EQ-5D is being used?
20
Instruments
• Generic vs SpecificGeneric instruments: evaluate HRQoL as a whole.
Appliable to a wide range of different people withdifferent type and severity of diseases, differentcultures…Useful for comparinsons and decision-makingacross diseases, interventions
Specific instruments: have been developed on specificgroups. They focus on the phenomenon of interest, can be more sensitive, more acceptable, do not allowcomparisons
ISSQoL
21
Instruments
• Indexes vs profilesThe index is a number quantifying HRQoLThe profile describes HRQoL in their domains
Index
0 (death)
100 (perfect health)
80
22
Instruments
• Indexes vs profilesThe index is a number quantifying HRQoLThe profile describes HRQoL in their domains
23
EQ-5D profile
Test Chi-quadrato (2X2):
0.046 0.007 0.037 NS NS
32.3%47.6%
77.4%93.7%
55.4%72.6%
19.6%28.6%51.2%58.1%
67.7%52.4%
21.4%6.3%
43.5%27.4%
73.8%69.8%
43.4%38.7%
0.0%1.2% 1.6%6.5%0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 5.4% 3.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
mobility self-care usual activities pain/discomfort anxiety/depressionsevere problemssome problemsno problem
sev mod sev mod sev mod sev mod sev mod
COCHE Study, podium presentation at ISPOR, 6-8 November 2005
24
SF-36
PF=Physical Functioning, RP=Role-Physical, BP=Bodily Pain, GH=General Health, VT=Vitality/Energy, SF=SocialFunctioning, RE=Role-Emotional, MH=Mental Health
67.0 62.857.8
45.6
61.069.5 68.6 68.8
59.150.5
88.282.2 78.8
68.8 66.1
80.5 80.0
43.1
53.7
63.566.3
71.370.0
71.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
PF RP BP GH VT SA RE MH
COCHE (232)
COCIS (50)
Italian malepopulation (999)
COCHE Study, podium presentation at ISPOR, 6-8 November 2005
25
Instruments
• Indexes vs profilesThe index, if appropriate, can be used in economic
evaluations (CUAs)The profile can be more useful in clinical practice
Quality adjusted life yearsQALY’s
Cost utility analysis (CUA)
26
Utility valueUtility value
0death
1Perfecthealth
0,5
0,48
Computing the QALYComputing the QALY
1 year of lifeWith utility level = 0.48
6 months of life With perfect health
(Utility x years of life) = QALY
27
HRQoL and utility index
• To be considered in economic evaluations, HRQoL has tobe given a value
• Indicator of that value is the maximum amount of a resource the individual is willing to give up to have higher levels of HRQoL, according to his/her preferences
• These preferences depend on his/her current health state perception, expectations etc
• The higher the willingness to give up, the lower the value given to the current HRQoL
Instruments to estimate utility
VAS (does not consider preferences)Standard GambleTime Trade OffDiscrete Choice Experiment
28
Index
0 (death)
100 (perfect health)
80
Standard Gamble
CurrentHealthstate
Current health state
UncertainTotal recovery: P
Death: 1 - P
Certain
29
50 years old men.Choose between 2 alternatives:
1-Do not accept and stay in the current state = 21222
2-accept and you can have:better state = 11111 with porworse state = 33333 with 1-p
Time-Trade-Off
X T
Health i
Life duration (years)
Health y
Health y = current health stateHealth i = health state with better quality of life but shorter duration
30
50 years old men.Choose between 2 alternatives:
1-Current state for the next 35 years = 21223
2-Better state = 11111 until deathin 35-x years
Discrete Choice Experiment
31
Discrete Choice Experiment
• Choice-based method• The individual chooses between alternatives• By sacrifying the benefit of something, he/she
will have the benefit from the alternative at his/her disposal
• By making this choice, the individual gives his/her own value to the good/service and itscharacteristics
DCE• Based on Lancaster’s theory: a good is a set of attributes and the
value of the good is a function of each attribute of the good;• Based on random utility theory,• consistent with the neoclassic economic theory
32
DCE• Based on Lancaster’s theory: a good is a set of attributes and the
value of the good is a function of each attribute of the good*;• Based on random utility theory,• consistent with the neoclassic economic theory
* Lancaster, 1966
650 € for 1000 UI (plasma-derived)929 € for 1000 UI (Second generation recomb fact)1115 € for 1000 UI (+20% of 929)
Price
Home deliveryCommunity pharmacy Hospital/Local Health Unit
Distribution modes
Lyophilized material for reconstitutionReady-to-use solutionPharmaceutical dosage form
Thrice a weekTwice a weekOnce a week
Factor infusion frequency onprophylaxis
Current (1/4 in PUPs)Reduced (1/6 in PUPs)Very reduced (1/10 in PUPs)
Risk of inhibitor development
Second generation recombinant factorsVery highly purified plasma derived factorsPerceived viral safety
LevelsAttributes
Characteristics and levels
Mantovani et al, Haemophilia, 2005
33
DC model• Based on Lancaster’s theory: a good is a set of attributes and the
value of the good is a function of each attribute of the good;• Based on random utility theory*,• consistent with the neoclassic economic theory*
* Thurstone, 1927, McFadden, 1973; Manski, 1977
34
Neoclassical economic theory
Assumption: the decision-maker is able to compare some alternatives(choice set) using a preference-indifference operator “>”
Using the “>” operator is equivalent to assigning a value (utility) to each alternative and selecting the alternative with the highest utility
Limitation: the human behavior is complex and a choice model should explicitly capture some level of uncertainty.
Random utility theoryAssumes, as the neoclassical economic theory, that the decision-maker has
a perfect discrimination capability. Anyway the analist is supposed to have incomplete information: uncertainty
is taken into accountThe utility is modeled as a random variable, in order to reflect this
uncertainty
i = decision-maker indexj and k = alternatives to be compared, j the one to be chosen
35
Random utility modelUij = Vij + εij
Pij = Prob (Uij > Uik) == Prob (Vij + εij > Vik + εik) = = Prob (Vij - Vik > εij - εik) ∀j ≠ k
P(j | a, b, …, n) = exp Vj / Σk exp Vk
i = decision-maker indexj = the chosen alternative over k alternativesa, b, …,n = k alternatives
650 € for 1000 UI (plasma-derived)929 € for 1000 UI (Second generation recomb fact)1115 € for 1000 UI (+20% of 929)
Price
Home deliveryCommunity pharmacy Hospital/Local Health Unit
Distribution modes
Lyophilized material for reconstitutionReady-to-use solutionPharmaceutical dosage form
Thrice a weekTwice a weekOnce a week
Factor infusion frequency onprophylaxis
Current (1/4 in PUPs)Reduced (1/6 in PUPs)Very reduced (1/10 in PUPs)
Risk of inhibitor development
Second generation recombinant factorsVery highly purified plasma derived factorsPerceived viral safety
LevelsAttributes
Characteristics and levels
Mantovani et al, Haemophilia, 2005
36
Choice set
Vij = αij + βXij
- αij = alternative specific constant - Xij = attributes - taste weights = β
• Whether an attribute is important• Relative importance of attributes• marginal rates of substitution of attribute n over attribute n+1 (βn/βn+1)
– willingness to pay (WTP) for an attribute (βn/-βprice)– willingness to give up time (βn/-βtime)
• Welfare/benefit (utility) scores
DCE: Useful to estimate
37
Milano, 15 novembre 2005
Milano, 15 novembre 2005
38
Uses and utilities of HRQoL instruments
• Clinical practice to understand something more about the individuals’ (patients’) health
Uses and utilities of HRQoL instruments
• Clinical practice to understand something more about the individuals’ (patients’) health
• Population based studies to understand the impact of diseases, interventions
39
Uses and utilities of HRQoL instruments
• Clinical practice to understand something more about the individuals’ (patients’) health
• Population based studies to understand the impact of diseases, interventions
• Economic Evaluations to understand how to more efficiently allocate the available resouces
Key elements on HRQoL evaluation
40
Key elements on HRQoL evaluation
• NO Gold Standard• Compromise and choises according to aims,
resources• Battery