Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Review of Drug Administration Costs and Implications for Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The acquisition costs of biologic drugs are often considered to be relatively high compared with those of nonbiologics. However, the total costs of delivering these drugs also depend on the cost of administration. Ignoring drug administration costs may distort resource allocation decisions because these affect cost effectiveness.

Objectives

The objectives of this systematic review were to develop a framework of drug administration costs that considers both the costs of physical administration and the associated proximal costs; and, as a case example, to use this framework to evaluate administration costs for biologics within the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Methods

We reviewed literature that reported estimates of administration costs for biologics within the UK NHS to identify how these costs were quantified and to examine how differences in dosage forms and regimens influenced administration costs. The literature reviewed were identified by searching the Centre for Review and Dissemination Databases (DARE, NHS EED and HTA); EMBASE (The Excerpta Medica Database); MEDLINE (using the OVID interface); Econlit (EBSCO); Tufts Medical Center Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry; and Google Scholar.

Results

We identified 4,344 potentially relevant studies, of which 43 studies were selected for this systematic review. We extracted estimates of the administration costs of biologics from these studies. We found evidence of variation in the way that administration costs were measured, and that this affected the magnitude of costs reported, which could then influence cost effectiveness.

Conclusions

Our findings suggested that manufacturers of biologic medicines should pay attention to formulation issues and their impact on administration costs, because these affect the total costs of healthcare delivery and cost effectiveness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sikora K. Paying for cancer care—a new dilemma. J R Soc Med. 2007;100(4):166–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kelly C, Mir F. Biological therapies: how can we afford them? BMJ. 2009;339(7722):666–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aulton ME. Aulton’s pharmaceutics: the design and manufacture of medicines. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Speers M, Bonnano C. Economic aspects of controlled drug delivery. In: Mathiowitz E, editor. Encyclopaedia of controlled drug delivery. 1st ed. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1999. p. 341–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. UK Hospital and Community Health Services. HCHS pay and prices series 2010–2011. http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/finmannsf/af3d43e36a4c8f8500256722005b77f8/276315c0677bf5478025796b00418a4d?OpenDocument. Accessed 15 Nov 2012.

  6. Drummond M, Aristides M, Davies L, Forbes C. Economic evaluation of standard heparin and enoxaparin for prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis in elective hip surgery. Br J Surg. 1994;81(12):1742–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Le LK, Myon E, Hill S, Riou-Franca L, Scott D, Sidhu M, et al. Comparative cost-minimisation of oral and intravenous chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the UK NHS system. Eur J Health Econ. 2007;8(2):145–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(42):1–248.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Burls A. The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(21):1–110.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cummins E, Asseburg C, Punekar YS, Shore E, Morris J, Briggs A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis. Value Health. 2011;14(1):15–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Woolacott N, Vergel YB, Hawkins N, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Misso K et al. Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2006;10(31):1–239.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bravo VY, Hawkins NS, Claxton K, Asseburg C, Palmer S, Woolacott N, et al. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology. 2007;46(11):1729–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dretzke J, Edlin R, Round J, Connock M, Hulme C, Czeczot J, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of the use of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, adalimumab and infliximab, for Crohn’s disease. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(6):2011.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kielhorn A, Porter D, Diamantopoulos A, Lewis G. UK cost-utility analysis of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis that failed to respond adequately to a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(9):2639–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Knight C, Hind D, Brewer N, Abbott V. Rituximab (MabThera) for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2001;8(37):iii–ixi.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sweetenham J, Hieke K, Kerrigan M, Howard P, Smartt PF, McIntyre AM, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the UK. Br J Haematol. 1999;106(1):47–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ward S, Morris E, Bansback N, Calvert N, Crellin A, Forman D, et al. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(24):1–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lloyd A, Kennedy R, Hutchinson J, Sawyer W. Economic evaluation of highly purified menotropin compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(5):1108–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Woolacott N, Bravo VY, Hawkins N, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Misso K, et al. Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(31):1–258.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bravo VY, Hawkins NS, Claxton K, Asseburg C, Palmer S, Woolacott N, et al. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology. 2007;46:1729–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wolowacz SE, Roskell NS, Maciver F, Beard SM, Robinson PA, Plumb JM, et al. Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee and hip replacement surgery. Clin Ther. 2009;31(1):194–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jit M, Bilcke JB, Mangen M-JJ, Salo H, Melliez H, John Edmunds W, et al. The cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination: comparative analyses for five European countries and transferability in Europe. Vaccine. 2009;27(44):6121–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morris S, Ridley S, Munro V, Christensen MC. Cost effectiveness of recombinant activated factor VII for the control of bleeding in patients with severe blunt trauma injuries in the United Kingdom. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(1):43–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research). Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp. Accessed 12 Apr 2013.

  25. Hughes DA, Tilson L, Drummond M. Estimating drug costs in economic evaluations in Ireland and the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(8):635–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stremersch S, Tellis GJ. Strategic bundling of products and prices: a new synthesis for marketing. J Mark. 2002;66(1):55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Webster CS, Merry AF, Gander PH, Mann NK. A prospective, randomised clinical evaluation of a new safety-orientated injectable drug administration system in comparison with conventional methods. Anaesthesia. 2004;59(1):80–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kruse GB, Amonkar MM, Smith G, Skonieczny DC, Stavrakas S. Analysis of costs associated with administration of intravenous single-drug therapies in metastatic breast cancer in a US population. J Manag Care Pharm 2008;14(9):844–57.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harley CR, Frytak JR, Tandon N. Treatment compliance and dosage administration among rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving infliximab, etanercept, or methotrexate. Am J Manag Care 2003;9(6 Suppl):36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vernon JA, Hughen WK, Trujillo AJ. Pharmaceutical manufacturing efficiency, drug prices, and public health: examining the causal links. Med Inf. 2007;41(2):229–39.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Scherer FM. The link between gross profitability and pharmaceutical R&D spending. Health Aff. 2001;20(5):216–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IAO. “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, but”? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77(3):352–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cheng MM, Alfonso R, Best JH, Garrison LP, Bruhn D, Veenstra DL. The economic value of reducing medication dosing frequency with drug delivery technologies: an evidence assessment. J Med Econ. 2010;13(2):193–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cassidy J, Douillard JY, Twelves C, McKendrick JJ, Scheithauer W, Bustova I, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of adjuvant oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-FU/LV in Dukes’ C colon cancer: the X-ACT trial. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(8):1122–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dretzke J, Edlin R, Round J, Connock M, Hulme C, Czeczot J et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of the use of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, adalimumab and infliximab, for Crohn’s disease. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(6):1–244.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Holmes J, Dunlop D, Hemmett L, Sharplin P, Bose U. A cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(9):581–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoyle M, Green C, Thompson-Coon J, Liu Z, Welch K, Moxham T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of temsirolimus for first line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Value Health. 2010;13(1):61–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Iveson TJ, Hickish T, Schmitt C, Van CE. Irinotecan in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: improved survival and cost-effect compared with infusional 5-FU. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(13):1796–804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lewis G, Peake M, Aultman R, Gyldmark M, Morlotti L, Creeden J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the United Kingdom. J Int Med Res. 2010;38(1):9–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Loveman E, Jones J, Hartwell D, Bird A, Harris P, Welch K, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(19):1–178.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Robinson P, von der Maase H, Bhalla S, Kielhorn A, Aristides M, Brown A, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the GC versus MVAC regimens for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2004;4(1):27–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Starling N, Tilden D, White J, Cunningham D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(2):206–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Colquitt JL, Green C, Sidhu MK, Hartwell D, Waugh N. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(43):1–171.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cummins E, Royle P, Snaith A, Greene A, Robertson L, McIntyre L et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(11):1–181.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cummins E, Asseburg C, Prasad M, Buchanan J, Punekar YS. Cost effectiveness of golimumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis. Euro J Health Econ. 2012;13(6):801–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hoyle M, Rogers G, Moxham T, Liu Z, Stein K. Cost-effectiveness of dasatinib and nilotinib for imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1057–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Martin NK, Vickerman P, Miners A, Foster GR, Hutchinson SJ, Goldberg DJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus antiviral treatment for injection drug user populations. Hepatology. 2012;55(1):49–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. De Pinot MA, Edmunds WJ, Breuer J. The cost-effectiveness of antenatal varicella screening with post-partum vaccination of susceptibles. Vaccine. 2006;24(9):1298–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, Smith I, Wittrup-Jensen KU. Cost-effectiveness of detemir-based basal/bolus therapy versus NPH-based basal/bolus therapy for type 1 diabetes in a UK setting: an economic analysis based on meta-analysis results of four clinical trials. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(11):1729–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rogers G, Hoyle M, Thompson CJ, Moxham T, Liu Z, Pitt M, et al. Dasatinib and nilotinib for imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(22):1–410.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Chilcott J, Lloyd JM, Wight J, Forman K, Wray J, Beverley C, et al. A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus-negative. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(4):1–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Fenn P, Gray A, McGuire A. An economic evaluation of universal vaccination against hepatitis B virus. J Inf. 1996;32(3):197–204.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Jit M, Cromer D, Baguelin M, Stowe J, Andrews N, Miller E. The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women against seasonal influenza in England and Wales. Vaccine. 2010;29(1):115–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mangtani P, Hall AJ, Normand CE. Hepatitis B vaccination: the cost effectiveness of alternative strategies in England and Wales. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1995;49(3):238–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. McIntosh ED, Conway P, Willingham J, Hollingsworth R, Lloyd A. Pneumococcal pneumonia in the UK: how herd immunity affects the cost-effectiveness of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV). Vaccine. 2005;23(14):1739–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Nuijten MJ, Wittenberg W, Lebmeier M. Cost effectiveness of palivizumab for respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis in high-risk children: a UK analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(1):55–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Siddiqui MR, Gay N, John Edmunds W, Ramsay M. Economic evaluation of infant and adolescent hepatitis B vaccination in the UK. Vaccine. 2011;29(3):466–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Trotter CL, Edmunds WJ. Reassessing the cost-effectiveness of meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccines using a transmission dynamic model. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26:38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Vick S, Cairns J, Urbaniak S, Whitfield C, Raafat A. Cost-effectiveness of antenatal anti-D prophylaxis. Health Econ. 1996;5:319–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lowin J, Bergman A, Chaudhuri KR, Findley LJ, Roeder C, Schifflers M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel compared to standard care in late stage Parkinson’s disease in the UK. J Med Econ. 2011;14(5):584–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Walleser S, Ray J, Bischoff H, Vergnenegre A, Rosery H, Chouaid C, et al. Maintenance erlotinib in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness in EGFR wild-type across Europe. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4(1):269–75.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for the EPSRC Centre for Innovative Manufacturing in Emergent Macromolecular Therapies is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support from the consortium of industrial and governmental users is also acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the authors’ affiliated institutions or the funders. S. M. and E. T. conceived the study. E. T. undertook the systematic review, with input from S. M. where necessary. E. T. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. S. M. provided critical editorial input on the manuscript. Both authors reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript. Both authors had full access to all of the data in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. E. T. is the guarantor.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Health Research, EPSRC Centre for Innovative Manufacturing in Emergent Macromolecular Therapies, University College of London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK

    Ebenezer Tetteh & Stephen Morris

Authors
  1. Ebenezer Tetteh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebenezer Tetteh.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 96 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tetteh, E., Morris, S. Systematic Review of Drug Administration Costs and Implications for Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11, 445–456 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0045-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0045-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation