The potential price and access implications of the cost-utility and budget impact methodologies applied by NICE in England and ICER in the US for a novel gene therapy in Parkinson’s disease

References

• Nuijten MJC, Dubois DJ. Cost-utility analysis: current methodological issues and future perspectives. Front Pharmacol. 2011;2:1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nancy McLaughlin, Ong M.K., Tabbush V., et al. Contemporary health care economics: an overview. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(5):E2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough CM, Tosteson ANA. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmaco Economics. 2007;25(2):93–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor C, Jan S. Economic evaluation of medicines. Aust Prescriber. 2017;40(2):76–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paris V, Belloni A. Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing Country Overview: Canada. 2014 [cited 2018 Feb 15]; Available from: https://www.oecd.org/health/Value-in-Pharmaceutical-Pricing-Canada.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen J, Kefalas P. Reimbursement of licensed cell and gene therapies across the major European healthcare markets. Journal Market Access Health Policy. 2015;3:10. 3402/jmahp.v3.29321.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [PMG9]. 2013 [cited 2015 Nov 12]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781.
   Google Scholar
• Latimer NR. NICE decision support unit technical support document 14, survival analysis for economicevaluations alongside clinical trials - extrapolation with patient-level data. In:  Wailoo, A. (Ed). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Claxton, K., Martin S., Soares M., et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1–503, v-vi.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabine Grimm MS, Brennan A, Wailoo A. Framework for analysing risk in health technology assessments and its application to managed entry agreements. 2016; Available from: http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/nicedsu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/DSU-Managed-Access-report-FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) with NCCN Evidence Blocks™. [cited 2018 Feb 12]; Available from: https://www.nccn.org/evidenceblocks/.
   Google Scholar
• Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Drug Pricing Lab). Drug Abacus. 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 12]; Available from: https://drugpricinglab.org/tools/drug-abacus/.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J.L., Heidenreich P.A., Barnett P.G., et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(21):2304–2322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung, K., Basu A., Hansen R.N., et al. Impact of a value-based formulary on medication utilization, health services utilization, and expenditures. Med Care. 2017;55(2):191–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers JD, Cangelosi MJ, Neumann PJ. Medicare’s use of cost-effectiveness analysis for prevention (but not for treatment). Health Policy. 2015;119(2):156–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for clinical and economic review (ICER). Materials. 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 7]; Available from: https://icer-review.org/materials/.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and NHS England. Proposals for changes to the arrangements for evaluating and funding drugs and other health technologies appraised through NICE’s technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programmes. 2016 [cited 2017 Mar 31]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/our-programmes/technology-appraisals/NICE_NHSE_TA_and_HST_consultation_document.PDF.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for clinical and economic review (ICER). Overview of the ICER value assessment framework and update for 2017–2019. 2017 [cited 2018 Jun 15]; Available from: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ICER-value-assessment-framework-Updated-050818.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE and NHS England consultation on changes to the arrangements for evaluating and funding drugs and other health technologies assessed through NICE’s technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programmes (Reference: 17/029). 2017 [cited 2017 Mar 31]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/Get-involved/Meetings-In-Public/Public-board-meetings/agenda-and-papers-mar-17.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE gets go-ahead to fast-track more drug approvals. 2017 [cited 2017 Apr 3]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-gets-go-ahead-to-fast-track-more-drug-approvals.
   Google Scholar
• Bodkin H, Big pharma sues drugs watchdog over medicines price cap, in The Telegraph. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Ogden J. How will NICE’s budget impact test affect new drug availability?. Prescriber. 2017;28(8):9–12.
   Google Scholar
• National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Summary of decisions. 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 12]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-technology-appraisal-guidance/summary-of-decisions.
   Google Scholar
• National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Who we are. [cited 2018 Feb 13]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/who-we-are.
   Google Scholar
• NICE Triennial Review Team, Assurance Division, Group Operations, Department of Health. Report of the triennial review of the national institute for health and care excellence. 2015 [cited 2018 Feb 13]; Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447317/NICE_Triennial_Review_Report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Interim process and methods of the highly specialised technologies programme updated to reflect 2017 changes - process for the evaluation of highly specialised technologies. 2017 [cited 2017 May 9]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-highly-specialised-technologies-guidance/HST-interim-methods-process-guide-may-17.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for clinical and economic review (ICER). How we do our work. [cited 2018 Feb 13]; Available from: https://icer-review.org/methodology/icers-methods/.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for clinical and economic review (ICER). ICER value assessment framework. [cited 2018 Feb 13]; Available from: https://icer-review.org/methodology/icers-methods/icer-value-assessment-framework/.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for clinical and economic review (ICER). Modifications to the ICER value assessment framework for treatments for ultra‐rare diseases. 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 6]; Available from: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ICER-Adaptations-of-Value-Framework-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Assessing cost impact - Methods guide. 2011 [cited 2016 Aug 25]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/Into-practice/Costing_Manual_update_050811.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programmes - procedure for varying the funding requirement to take account of net budget impact. 2017 [cited 2017 Apr 3]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisals/TA-HST-procedure-varying-the-funding-direction.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lowin, J., Bergman A., Chaudhuri K.R., 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):584–593.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dams, J., Siebert U., Bornschein B., et al. Cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Move Disord. 2013;28(6):763–771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggington, S., Valldeoriola F., Chaudhuri K.R., et al. The cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation in combination with best medical therapy, versus best medical therapy alone, in advanced Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol. 2014;261(1):106–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findley, L.J., Lees A., Apajasalo M., et al. Cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (Stalevo) compared to standard care in UK Parkinson’s disease patients with wearing-off. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(7):1005–1014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter E, Odin P. Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous apomorphine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease in the UK and Germany. J Med Econ. 2015;18(2):155–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). co-careldopa-levodopa (Duodopa). 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 13]; Available from: https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/advice/DAD_co-careldopa_2nd_Resubmission_FINAL_May_2016_for_website.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Krüger, R., Klucken J., Weiss D., et al. Classification of advanced stages of Parkinson’s disease: translation into stratified treatments. J Neural Transm. 2017;124(8):1015–1027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Parkinson’s disease in adults (NG71). 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 15]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng71/resources/parkinsons-disease-in-adults-pdf-1837629189061.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Diagnosis and pharmacological management of Parkinson’s disease - A national clinical guideline (113). 2010 [cited 2016 Jul 5]; Available from: http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign113.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Dudley Joint Medicines Formulary. Parkinson’s Disease Prescribing Guidelines for use in Primary and Secondary Care. 2015 [cited 2016 Jul 5]; Available from: http://www.dudleyformulary.nhs.uk/page/20/guidelines.
   Google Scholar
• Hjelmgren, J., Ghatnekar O., Reimer J., et al. Estimating the value of novel interventions for Parkinson’s disease: an early decision-making model with application to dopamine cell replacement. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2006;12(7):443–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh, E., Gray A., Daniels J., et al. Cost-utility analysis of deep brain stimulation surgery plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy in patients with Parkinson’s: economic evaluation alongside the PD SURG trial. Mov Disord. 2016;31(8):1173–1182. doi: 10.1002/mds.26423. .
   Google Scholar
• Nuijten, M.J., van Iperen P., Palmer C., et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of entacapone in Parkinson’s disease: a Markov process analysis.Value Health. 2001;4(4):316–328.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Palmer, C.S., Nuijten M.J., Schmier J.K., et al. Cost effectiveness of treatment of Parkinson’s disease with entacapone in the USA. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(9):617–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrone P. Capturing the costs of end-of-life care: comparisons of multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38(1):62–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Health service cost index - annual summaries 2006–2015. 2006–2016 [cited 2016 Feb 17]; Available from: www.info.doh.gov.uk.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2014 PPP Benchmark results. 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 5]; Available from: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PPP2014.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, C.S., Schmier J.K., Snyder E., et al. Patient preferences and utilities for ‘off-time’ outcomes in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(7):819–827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group. How to report - UK population sample by age/sex. [cited 2015 Nov 9]; Table quoting data from P. Kind, G. Hardman and S. Macran. UK Population norms for EQ-5D York Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper pp. 172. 1999. Available from: http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/how-to-use-eq-5d/how-to-report.html.
   Google Scholar
• Liou, H.H., Wu C.Y., Chiu Y.H., et al. Mortality of Parkinson’s disease by Hoehn-Yahr stage from community-based and clinic series [Keelung Community-based Integrated Screening (KCIS) no. 17)]. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(4):587–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen J, Kefalas P. Annuity payments can increase patient access to innovative cell and gene therapies under England’s net budget impact test. Journal Market Access Health Policy. 2017;5(1):1355203.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parkinson’s UK. Parkinson’s prevalence in the UK. 2009 [cited 2018 Feb 20]; Available from: https://www.parkinsons.org.uk/sites/default/files/parkinsonsprevalenceuk_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kowal, S.L., Dall T.M., Chakrabarti R., et al. The current and projected economic burden of Parkinson’s disease in the USA. Mov Disord. 2013;28(3):311–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worldometers. UK population. 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 14]; Available from: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/.
   Google Scholar
• Worldometers. US Population. 2018 [cited 2018]; Available from: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen J, Kefalas P. A price comparison of recently launched proprietary pharmaceuticals in the UK and the USA. Journal Market Access Health Policy. 2016;4:10.3402/jmahp.v4.32754.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for clinical and economic review (ICER). Voretigene Neparvovec for Biallelic RPE65- Mediated Retinal Disease: effectiveness and Value. 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 15]; Available from: http://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MWCEPAC_VORETIGENE_EVIDENCE_REPORT_01122018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Exploring the assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products. 2016 [cited 2018 Jul 4]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/about/what-we-do/science%20policy%20and%20research/regenerative-medicine-study-march2016-2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Marsden G, Towse A, Pearson SD, et al. Gene Therapy: understanding the Science, Assessing the Evidence, and Paying for Value. 2017 [cited 2017 Apr 4]; Available from: https://www.ohe.org/publications/gene-therapy-understanding-science-assessing-evidence-and-paying-value.
   Google Scholar
• Ted Slocomb MW, Haack T, Valluri S, et al. New Payment And Financing Models For Curative Regenerative Medicines. 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 15]; Available from: https://www.hklaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Articles/ARM_Curative_Regenerative_IV1707_LRS.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Seidman J, Choe SH Most Health Plans Do Not Use Existing Value Frameworks to Make Coverage Decisions. 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 12]; Available from: http://avalere.com/expertise/life-sciences/insights/most-health-plans-do-not-use-value-frameworks-to-make-coverage-decisions.
   Google Scholar
• Lising A, Drummond M, Barry M, et al. Payers’ Use of Independent Reports in Decision Making – will There Be an ICER Effect?. Value & Outcomes Spotlight 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 14]; Available from: https://www.ispor.org/health-policy_independent-reports_ICER.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Slomiany, M., Madhavan P., Kuehn M., et al. Value Frameworks in Oncology: comparative Analysis and Implications to the Pharmaceutical Industry. American Health & Drug Benefits. 2017;10(5):253–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnipper, L.E., Davidson, N.E., Wollins, D.S., et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2925–2934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y.J., Wee H.L., Chan Y.H., et al. Progression of Parkinson’s disease as evaluated by Hoehn and Yahr stage transition times. Mov Disord. 2010;25(6):710–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OFX. Yearly Average Rates. 2018 [cited 2018 Feb 8]; Available from: https://www.ofx.com/en-gb/forex-news/historical-exchange-rates/yearly-average-rates/.
   Google Scholar