Advertisement

Do Research Groups Align on an Intervention’s Value? Concordance of Cost-Effectiveness Findings Between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Other Health System Stakeholders

Abstract

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) employs fixed cost-effectiveness (CE) thresholds that guide their appraisal of an intervention’s long-term economic value. Given ICER’s rising influence in the healthcare field, we undertook an assessment of the concordance of ICER’s CE findings to the published CE findings from other research groups (i.e., “non-ICER” researchers including life science manufacturers, academics, and government institutions). Disease areas and pharmaceutical interventions for comparison were determined based on ICER evaluations conducted from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017. A targeted literature search was conducted for non-ICER CE publications using PubMed. Studies had to be conducted from the US setting, include the same disease characteristics (e.g., disease severity; treatment history), incorporate the same pharmaceutical interventions and comparison groups, and present incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the healthcare sector or payer perspective. Discordance was measured as the proportion of unique interventions that would have had more favorable valuations (i.e., low, intermediate, high value-for-money) if the CE findings from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER’s findings. More favorable valuations were defined as transitioning from low value (as determined by ICER) to intermediate or high value (as determined by other researchers) and from intermediate value (as determined by ICER) to high value (as determined by other researchers). Among the 13 non-ICER studies meeting inclusion criteria, six disease areas and 14 interventions were assessed. Of the 14 interventions, a more favorable valuation would have been recommended for ten therapies if the CE ratios from other research groups had been used for decision making instead of ICER’s findings, representing a 71.4% (10/14) discordance rate. Moreover, these discrepancies were found in each of the evaluated disease areas, with the largest number of discordant valuations found in rheumatoid arthritis (five out of six interventions were discordant) followed by one valuation each in multiple sclerosis (one out of three), non-small cell lung cancer (one out of two), multiple myeloma (one out of one), high cholesterol (one out of one), and congestive heart failure (one out of one). Our findings indicate high discordance when comparing ICER’s appraisals to the CE findings of non-ICER researchers. To understand the value of new interventions, the totality of evidence on the CE of an intervention—including results from ICER and non-ICER modeling efforts—should be considered when making coverage and reimbursement decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 49.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    CVS Health. Current and new approaches to making drugs more affordable. Updated August 2018. https://cvshealth.com/sites/default/files/cvs-health-current-and-new-approaches-to-making-drugs-more-affordable.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2019.

  2. 2.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review to Collaborate with the Department of Veteran Affairs’ Pharmacy Benefits Management Services Office. Updated June 27, 2017. https://icer-review.org/announcements/va-release/. Accessed 16 Feb 2019.

  3. 3.

    Robinson JC. Amgen Cuts Repatha’s Price By 60% Will Value-based Pricing Support Value-based Patient Access? Health Affairs. Updated November 28, 2018. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181127.943927/full/. Accessed 16 Feb 2019.

  4. 4.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. PCSK9 inhibitors for treatment of high cholesterol: effectiveness, value, and value-based price benchmarks. https://icer-review.org/material/high-cholesterol-final-report/. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.

  5. 5.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. About. https://icer-review.org/about/. Accessed 16 Feb 2019.

  6. 6.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Final value assessment framework for 2017–2019. https://icer-review.org/final-vaf-2017-2019/. Accessed 16 Feb 2019.

  7. 7.

    Dubois, RW. From the Editorial Board: Robert W. Dubois, MD, PhD. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25(7):302. https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2019/2019-vol25-n7/from-the-editorial-board-robert-w-dubois-md-phd. Accessed 15 Aug 2019.

  8. 8.

    Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. CEA Registry. https://cevr.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/databases/cea-registry. Accessed 25 Mar 2019.

  9. 9.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors as preventive treatments for patients with episodic or chronic migraine: effectiveness and value. https://icer-review.org/material/cgrp-final-report/. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.

  10. 10.

    Sussman M, Benner J, Neumann P, Menzin J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: results from the US societal and payer perspectives. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(10):1644–57.

  11. 11.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis: effectiveness & value. https://icer-review.org/material/ra-final-report/. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.

  12. 12.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: effectiveness & value. https://icer-review.org/material/ms-final-report/. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.

  13. 13.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: effectiveness, value, and value-based price benchmarks. https://icer-review.org/material/nsclc-final-report/. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.

  14. 14.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Treatment options for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: effectiveness, value, and value-based price benchmarks. https://icer-review.org/material/mm-final-report/. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.

  15. 15.

    Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. CardioMEMS HF System (St. Jude Medical, Inc.) and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis AG) for management of congestive heart failure: effectiveness, value, and value-based price benchmarks. https://icer-review.org/material/chf_final_report/. Accessed 20 Nov 2019.

  16. 16.

    Spalding JR, Hay J. Cost effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors as first-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(12):1221–32.

  17. 17.

    Wong JB, Singh G, Kavanaugh A. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of 54 weeks of infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med. 2002;113(5):400–8.

  18. 18.

    Yuan Y, Trivedi D, Maclean R, et al. Indirect cost-effectiveness analyses of abatacept and rituximab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the United States. J Med Econ. 2010;13(1):33–41.

  19. 19.

    Vera-Llonch M, Massarotti E, Wolfe F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of abatacept in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(9):1745–53.

  20. 20.

    Bell C, Graham J, Earnshaw S. Cost-effectiveness of four immunomodulatory therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a Markov model based on long-term clinical data. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007;13(3):245–61.

  21. 21.

    Pan F, Goh JW, Cutter G, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness model of interferon beta-1b in the early treatment of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Clin Ther. 2012;34(9):1966–76.

  22. 22.

    Earnshaw SR, Graham J, Oleen-Burkey M, et al. Cost effectiveness of glatiramer acetate and natalizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2009;7(2):91–108.

  23. 23.

    Aguiar PN Jr, Perry LA, Penny-Dimri J, et al. The effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the second-line treatment of NSCLC. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(9):2256–63.

  24. 24.

    Huang M, Lou Y, Pellissier J. Cost effectiveness of Pembrolizumab vs. standard-of-care chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC that expresses high levels of PD-L1 in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(8):831–44.

  25. 25.

    Jakubowiak AJ, Campioni M, Benedict Á, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma from a US perspective. J Med Econ. 2016;19(11):1061–74.

  26. 26.

    Gandra SR, Villa G, Fonarow GC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of LDL-C lowering with evolocumab in patients with high cardiovascular risk in the United States. Clin Cardiol. 2016;39(6):313–20.

  27. 27.

    King JB, Shah RU, Bress AP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan combination therapy compared with enalapril for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4(5):392–402.

  28. 28.

    Gaziano TA, Fonarow GC, Claggett B, Chan WW, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(6):666–72.

  29. 29.

    Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:683–91.

  30. 30.

    Science & Innovation Theater. (2019). ICER: payer perspectives on the use and usage of ICER reports [PowerPoint slides]. https://www.amcp.org/Resource-Center/formulary-utilization-management/icer-payer-perspectives-use-and-usage-icer-reports.

  31. 31.

    Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38737.607558.80.

  32. 32.

    Norris P, Herxheimer A, Lexchin J, Mansfield P. Drug promotion: what we know, what we have yet to learn. World Health Organization and Health Action International; 2005.

  33. 33.

    Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: a systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167–70.

  34. 34.

    Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Bell CM, et al. Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence. Health Aff. 2000;19(2):92–109.

  35. 35.

    Chopra SS. Industry funding of clinical trials: benefit or bias? JAMA. 2003;290(1):113–4.

Download references

Author information

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Matthew Sussman, Jeffrey C. Yu, and Joseph Menzin. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Matthew Sussman and Jeffrey C. Yu and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Correspondence to Matthew Sussman.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Conflict of interest

Matthew Sussman, Jeffrey C. Yu, and Joseph Menzin declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sussman, M., Yu, J.C. & Menzin, J. Do Research Groups Align on an Intervention’s Value? Concordance of Cost-Effectiveness Findings Between the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Other Health System Stakeholders. Appl Health Econ Health Policy (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00545-9

Download citation