Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reimbursement of glitazones in treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in Denmark in the context of a voluntary system for submitting pharmacoeconomic studies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1998, guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation were issued in Denmark. It was left to the discretion of the industry for which products to submit a pharmacoeconomic study. The impact of this voluntary system is illustrated by a case study on reimbursement of two types of glitazones. A review is presented of the evidence on safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glitazones that was available in the public domain at the time of reimbursement decision making, which was matched to the Danish criteria for general reimbursement of new pharmaceuticals. The study concludes that the voluntary system has not supported the inclusion of efficiency considerations in reimbursement decision making on glitazones. The decision-making process may be improved by mandatory pharmacoeconomic evaluations for selected products such as glitazones, which potentially represent a benefit to patients and potentially improve the cost-effectiveness of care, while at the same time having a considerable budget impact.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Laegemiddelstyrelsen (2001) Notat. Erfaringer med sundhedsøkonomiske analyser i ansøgninger om generelt tilskud til laegemidler—gennemgang af udvalgte emner. Laegemiddelstyrelsen, København (Danish Medicines Agency. Experience with health economics analyses as part of requests for general reimbursement of pharmaceuticals—discussion of selected issues.) Danish Medicines Agency, Copenhagen (in Danish). http://www.laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/tilskud/overblik/notat.asp. Cited 15 Apr 2003

  2. Sundhedsministeriet (1998) Bilag I. Retningslinier for udarbejdelse af økonomiske analyser af laegemidler. I: Udfordringer på laegemiddelområdet. Betaenkning afgivet af Sundhedsministeriets Medicinudvalg. Sundhedsministeriet, Betaenkning nr. 1357. (Ministry of Health, Appendix I. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation. In: Challenges and issues with regard to pharmaceuticals. Report issued by the Committee on Pharmaceuticals of the Ministry of Health. Report 1357). Copenhagen, pp 176–177 (in Danish)

  3. Pedersen KM (2003) Pricing and reimbursement of drugs in Denmark. EJHE 4: 60–65

    Google Scholar 

  4. Diabetesforeningen (1998) Sukkersyge—en sygdom i eksplosiv vaekst. Et indblik i sukkersygens sundhedsøkonomiske betydning med forslag til forbedringer. Rapport nr. 1. Udgivet af Diabetesforeningen (Diabetes Society. Diabetes mellitus – a disease with an extremely rapid increase in incidence. A review of the health economics consequences of diabetes with suggestions for improvement. Report Number 1. Danish Diabetes Society) (in Danish)

  5. de Sonnaville JJJ, Heine RJ (1997) Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: presentation and treatment. Medicine 25: 23–26

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barman Balfour JA, Plosker GL (1999) Rosiglitazone. Drugs 57: 921–930

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. FDA Talk Paper (2000) FDA’s report on new health care products approved in 1999. FDA. URL: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS0098.html. Cited 31 May 2002

  8. FDA Talk Paper (1999) FDA Approves Rosiglitazone to treat Type II diabetes. FDA, US; May 26, 1999. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00957.html. Cited 31 May 2002

  9. Gale EA (2001) Lessons from glitazones: a story of drug development. The Lancet 357: 1870–1875

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). CPMP/1043/00. Avandia. http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Actos/201400en1.pdf. Cited 23 Sept 2003

  11. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). CPMP/2014/00. Actos. http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Actos/201400en1.pdf. Cited 23 Sept 2003

  12. Laegemiddelstyrelsen (2000) Documents and correspondence on reimbursement of rosiglitazone. File nr. 5311-199. Laegemiddelstyrelsen (Danish Medicines Agency), Copenhagen, Denmark (in Danish)

  13. Laegemiddelstyrelsen (2000) Documents and correspondence on reimbursement of pioglitazone. File nr. 5311-209. Laegemiddelstyrelsen (Danish Medicines Agency), Copenhagen, Denmark (in Danish)

  14. Institute for Rational Pharmacotherapy (2000) Rosiglitazone. http://www.irf.dk/dk/praeparatnyt/arkiv/avandia_rosiglitazone_02.htm. Cited 03 Sept 2001, revisited 29 May 2003. Avandia (rosiglitazone). Institute for Rational Pharmacotherapy, Copenhagen, Denmark (in Danish)

  15. Institute for Rational Pharmacotherapy (2000) Pioglitazone. http://www.irf.dk/dk/praeparatnyt/arkiv/actos_pioglitazone_02.htm. Cited 03 Sept 2001, revisited 29 May 2003. Actos (pioglitazone). Institute for Rational Pharmacotherapy, Copenhagen, Denmark (in Danish)

  16. Beck-Nielsen H, Henriksen JE, Hermansen K, Madsen LD, de Fine Olivarius N, Mandrup-Poulsen TR, Pedersen OB, Richelsen B, Schmitz OE (2000) Type 2 diabetes og det metaboliske syndrom—diagnostik og behandling. Dansk Selskab for Intern Medicin, Dansk Endokrinologisk Selskab, Dansk Selskab for Almen Medicin, Rapport Nr 6, 2000 (Type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome—diagnosis and treatment. Danish Society for Internal Medicine, Danish Endocrinological Society, Danish Society for General Practitioners) (in Danish). Available at: http://www.dadlnet.dk/klaringsrapporter/2000-06.htm#1

  17. Statens Institut for Medicinsk Teknologivurdering (2001) Etablering af et dansk system til tidlig varsling af nye teknologier. Rapport fra et pilotprojekt. Statens Institut for Medicinsk Teknologivurdering, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2001 (Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment. Establishment of a Danish early warning system for new technologies. Report of a pilot project. Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Copenhagen, Denmark (in Danish)

  18. Krentz AJ, Bailey CJ, Melander A (2000) Thiazolidinediones for type 2 diabetes. New agents reduce insulin resistance but need long term clinical trials. BMJ 321: 252–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Netdoktor. Nyhederne D (2002) (Netdoktor news, daily service, in Danish). http://www.netdoktor.dk. Cited 21 Feb 2002

  20. Laegemiddelstyrelsen (2000) Overblik over medicintilskud. Kriterier for enkelttilskud til visse typer af laegemidler (Danish Medicines Agency. Overview on reimbursement of pharmaceuticals. Criteria for individual reimbursement of selected pharmaceuticals (in Danish). http://www.laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/tilskud/overblik/ktiterier.asp. Cited 15 Oct 2001, revisited 29 May 2003

  21. Kampman JP (2001) Glitazoner. Rational Farmakoterapi 10: 3 (in Danish)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Boucher M, McAuley L, Brown A, Keely E, Skidmore B (2003) Technology Overview No. 9. Comparative clinical and budget evaluations of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone with other anti-diabetic agents. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), Ottawa, Canada

  23. Madsblad S (2001) Behandling af type 2 diabetes mellitus (Treatment of type 2 diabetes): Rationel Pharmacotherapy 9: 1–4 (in Danish)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Henriksson F (2002) Applications of economic models in health care. The introduction of pioglitazone in Sweden. PharmacoEconomics 20[Suppl 1]: 43–53

  25. Jónsson B (ed) (2002) Use of economic models in formulary decisions: case studies of pioglitazone in international settings. PharmacoEconomics 20[Suppl 1]: 1–53

  26. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) (1999) Note for guidance on procedure for competent authorities on the undertaking of pharmacovigilance activities. EMEA. http:www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/phvwp/017595en.pdf, sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.3. Cited 20 Jan 2004

  27. Stoykova S, Drummond M, Barbieri M, Kleijnen J (2003) The lag between effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of new drugs. EJHE 4: 313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest:

No information supplied.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Public Health, Department of Health Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3rd floor, DK 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Hindrik Vondeling & Peter Bindslev Iversen

Authors
  1. Hindrik Vondeling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Bindslev Iversen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hindrik Vondeling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vondeling, H., Iversen, P.B. Reimbursement of glitazones in treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in Denmark in the context of a voluntary system for submitting pharmacoeconomic studies. Eur J Health Econom 5, 263–269 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0235-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0235-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation