IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i2d10.1007_s40258-016-0291-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Population Health Benefits Associated with Specialty and Traditional Drugs in the Year Following Product Approval

Author

Listed:
  • James D. Chambers

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Teja Thorat

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Colby L. Wilkinson

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Mark Salem

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Prasun Subedi

    (Pfizer)

  • Sachin J. Kamal-Bahl

    (Pfizer)

  • Peter J. Neumann

    (Tufts Medical Center)

Abstract

Objective Compared to traditional drugs, specialty drugs tend to be indicated for lower prevalence diseases. Our objective was to compare the potential population health benefits associated with specialty and traditional drugs in the year following product approval. Methods First, we created a dataset of estimates of incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains and incremental life-year (LY) gains for US FDA-approved drugs (1999–2011) compared to standard of care at the time of approval identified from a literature search. Second, we categorized each drug as specialty or traditional. Third, for each drug we identified estimates of US disease prevalence for each pertinent indication. Fourth, in order to conservatively estimate the potential population health gains associated with each new drug in the year following its approval we multiplied the health gain estimate by 10% of the identified prevalence. Fifth, we used Mann–Whitney U tests to compare the population health gains for specialty and traditional drugs. Results We identified QALY gain estimates for 101 drugs, including 56 specialty drugs, and LY gain estimates for 50 drugs, including 34 specialty drugs. The median estimated population QALY gain in the year following approval for specialty drugs was 4200 (IQR = 27,000) and for traditional drugs was 694 (IQR = 24,400) (p = 0.245). The median estimated population LY gain in the year following approval for specialty drugs was 7250 (IQR = 39,200) and for traditional drugs was 2500 (IQR = 58,200) (p = 0.752). Conclusions Despite often being indicated for diseases of lower prevalence, we found a trend towards specialty drugs offering larger potential population health gains than traditional drugs, particularly when measured in terms of QALYs.

Suggested Citation

  • James D. Chambers & Teja Thorat & Colby L. Wilkinson & Mark Salem & Prasun Subedi & Sachin J. Kamal-Bahl & Peter J. Neumann, 2017. "Estimating Population Health Benefits Associated with Specialty and Traditional Drugs in the Year Following Product Approval," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 227-235, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0291-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0291-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0291-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0291-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2014. "Has Medical Innovation Reduced Cancer Mortality?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(1), pages 135-177.
    2. Williams, Alan, 1996. "QALYs and ethics: A health economist's perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(12), pages 1795-1804, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2006. "Responsibility, fairness and rationing in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 312-319, May.
    2. Jeon, Sung-Hee & Pohl, R. Vincent, 2019. "Medical innovation, education, and labor market outcomes of cancer patients," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Lichtenberg, Frank R. & Tatar, Mehtap & Çalışkan, Zafer, 2014. "The effect of pharmaceutical innovation on longevity, hospitalization and medical expenditure in Turkey, 1999–2010," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 361-373.
    4. Johannes Schoder & Peter Zweifel, 2011. "Flat-of-the-curve medicine: a new perspective on the production of health," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Joseph Cook & Joseph Golec & John Vernon & George Pink, 2011. "Real Option Value and Path Dependence in Oncology Innovation," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 225-238.
    6. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    7. Jae Ho Jung & Dae Jung Kim & Kangho Suh & Jaeeun You & Je Ho Lee & Kyung In Joung & Dong Churl Suh, 2021. "International Price Comparisons of Anticancer Drugs: A Scheme for Improving Patient Accessibility," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    8. Ariel Beresniak & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Jean Auray & Alain Wever & Jean-Claude Praet & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Danielle Dupont & Michel Lamure & Gerard Duru, 2015. "Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 61-69, January.
    9. Kyle, Margaret & Dubois, Pierre, 2016. "The Effects of Pharmaceutical Innovation on Cancer Mortality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11487, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2019. "How Many Life-Years Have New Drugs Saved? A 3-Way Fixed-Effects Analysis of 66 Diseases in 27 Countries, 2000-2013," NBER Working Papers 25483, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Denburg, Avram E. & Ungar, Wendy J. & Chen, Shiyi & Hurley, Jeremiah & Abelson, Julia, 2020. "Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 647-658.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:1-19 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Martine AUDIBERT, 2009. "Issues and Challenges of Measurement of Health:Implications for Economic Research," Working Papers 200922, CERDI.
    14. Frank Lichtenberg, 2015. "The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on premature cancer mortality in Canada, 2000–2011," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 339-359, September.
    15. Dubois, Pierre & Kyle, Margaret, 2016. "The Effects of Pharmaceutical Innovation on Cancer Mortality Rates," TSE Working Papers 16-688, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    16. Frank Lichtenberg, 2015. "The Impact of Pharmaceutical Innovation on Premature Mortality, Cancer Mortality, and Hospitalization in Slovenia, 1997–2010," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 207-222, April.
    17. Patrick Hofstetter & James K. Hammitt, 2002. "Selecting Human Health Metrics for Environmental Decision‐Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 965-983, October.
    18. Odejar, Maria & Baker, Rachel & Ryan, Mandy & Donalson, Cam & Bateman, Ian J. & Jones-Lee, M & Lancsar, Emily & Mason, Helen & Pinto Paredes, JL & Robinson, A & Shackley, P & Smith, R & Sugdem, R & Wi, 2010. "Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project," MPRA Paper 108869, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. George Miller & Matthew Daly & Charles Roehrig, 2013. "Tradeoffs in cardiovascular disease prevention, treatment, and research," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 87-100, June.
    20. Karen Huang & Regan M. Bernhard & Netta Barak-Corren & Max Bazerman & Joshua D. Greene, 2021. "Veil-of-ignorance reasoning mitigates self-serving bias in resource allocation during the COVID-19 crisis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, January.
    21. Frank Lichtenberg, 2010. "The Contribution of Pharmaceutical Innovation to Longevity Growth in Germany and France," CESifo Working Paper Series 3095, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0291-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.