IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i3d10.1007_s40258-018-0440-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Post-market Utilisation Analysis to Support Medicines Pricing Policy: An Australian Case Study of Aflibercept and Ranibizumab Use

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Kemp-Casey

    (University of South Australia)

  • Nicole Pratt

    (University of South Australia)

  • Emmae Ramsay

    (University of South Australia)

  • Elizabeth E. Roughead

    (University of South Australia)

Abstract

Objectives To describe how post-market utilisation analysis in Australia informs cost-effectiveness assessment and pricing decisions, using aflibercept and ranibizumab as case studies. Methods Pharmaceutical claims were used to identify initiators of aflibercept and ranibizumab in the year after aflibercept-listing (December 2012), and ranibizumab initiators in the year before aflibercept listing. The dispensing rates for each cohort were calculated, and their demographic and clinical characteristics compared using Kruskal–Wallis tests. Results Aflibercept and ranibizumab each accounted for half the age-related macular degeneration market following aflibercept listing. Aflibercept initiators had similar dispensing rates to ranibizumab initiators in the pre- and post-aflibercept era (~ three scripts during the first 90 days, and eight to nine scripts during the following 12 months). All cohorts were similar in terms of their age, sex, residential aged-care status and geographic remoteness, and no differences were observed in their overall co-morbidity scores and history of thromboembolic events. Conclusions Contrary to clinical trial protocols, post-market utilisation research for ranibizumab and aflibercept demonstrates equivalent use in practice in terms of dose frequency, and the demographic and clinical characteristics of initiators. This supports Australia’s decision to pay the same price for each rather than giving a premium to aflibercept. Many other countries are likely overpaying for aflibercept if their utilization patterns are similar to Australia’s, and could benefit from incorporating routine utilisation assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Kemp-Casey & Nicole Pratt & Emmae Ramsay & Elizabeth E. Roughead, 2019. "Using Post-market Utilisation Analysis to Support Medicines Pricing Policy: An Australian Case Study of Aflibercept and Ranibizumab Use," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 411-417, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0440-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0440-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0440-4
    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/s40258-018-0440-4?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caridad Pontes & Corinne Zara & Josep Torrent-Farnell & Merce Obach & Cristina Nadal & Patricia Vella-Bonanno & Michael Ermisch & Steven Simoens & Renata Curi Hauegen & Jolanta Gulbinovic & Angela Tim, 2020. "Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 5-16, February.
    2. Carolina Zampirolli Dias & Brian Godman & Ludmila Peres Gargano & Pâmela Santos Azevedo & Marina Morgado Garcia & Maurílio Souza Cazarim & Laís Lessa Neiva Pantuzza & Nelio Gomes Ribeiro-Junior & Andr, 2020. "Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1165-1185, November.

    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:17:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0440-4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.