Issue 7 PharmacoEconomics

Issue 7 of #PharmacoEconomics has just been published. Here is a quick summary (see link in the comments). #heor #healtheconomics

• Stephanie Harvard and Eric Winsberg discuss the challenges of patient and public involvement in health economics modelling. They suggest the purpose of #PPI is to manage value judgements. They argue normative guidance is needed with a focus on three key questions: Who should be involved in health economics modelling?; What modelling decisions should be informed by ?#PPI; How should #PPI influence modelling decisions? (Editor Comment: see also CHEERs 2022 for guidance on reporting #PPI in economic evaluations).
• Giovany O. et al. summarise a recent NICE STA on abemaciclib for early breast cancer. They summarise a number of methodological issues including; uncertainty in extrapolation of short term treatment effects and treatment waning; generalisability of clinical data; choice of comparators; and failure to model adherence. (Editor Comment: the methodological issues highlighted are not uncommon in many economic evaluations submitted to the journal)
• Dan Joyce, MD et al. provide a review of the economics of #bladdercancer treatments. They highlight the complex nature of bladder cancer treatment and the high cost of recurrence due to the need for multiple treatments. The authors conclude that bladder cancer is the costliest malignancy. In part, this is due to the use of expensive novel drugs with only modest gains in outcomes, and complications and toxicity from treatment. (Editor Comment: the focus on de-escalation of treatment and elimination of low value care are important and challenging areas to address)
• Danielle Glick et al. address the economic impact of insufficient sleep in the workplace suggesting costs could be as much as $US2000 per employee annually. They suggest forward thinking employers should consider workplace sleep health programs. They provide a table of key recommendations for employers and healthcare professionals. (Editor Comment: It will be interesting to see if flexible work practices and digital health interventions help reduce the burden of poor sleep to employers)
• Sergio Torres-Rueda, Ph.D. et al. propose #heor priorities for #hivprevention. They found current research lacks emphasis on key areas including equity, heterogeneity and uncertainty. They make a number of recommendations including the need for stakeholder engagement. (Editor Comment: Equity, heterogeneity, uncertainty and stakeholder engagement are areas of high interest across many disease areas)
• Gillian Currie et al. propose a framework for studies estimating the socioeconomic burden of rare diseases. They propose a list of cost elements to be used in future work. (Editor Comment: The authors hope their work will improve the quality and comparability of future studies - a laudable initiative.)
• Mickaël Hiligsmann et al. analyse the cost effectiveness of abaloparatide in the sequential treatment of men with #osteoporosis from a US payer perspective. Key areas of uncertainty included baseline fracture risk, fracture costs and medication adherence. (Editor Comment: I found this an interesting paper given the focus on men. The authors highlight a lack of data on the efficacy of osteoporosis treatments in men and the need to make assumptions of similar effects between men and women)
• In the final article of the July issue James Koh et al. estimate inequalities in quality-adjusted life expectancy in England. They find people living in the least deprived neighbourhoods can expect to live 7 years longer than those in the most deprived. (Editor Comment: this study highlights the importance of considering equity in economic evaluations, a theme highlighted in a number of other papers in this issue of the journal)

I would love to hear your thoughts on any of the articles in this issue. Please leave a comment in the comments section