Antihypertensive drugs: A perspective on pharmaceutical price erosion and its impact on cost-effectiveness

Value in Health

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 381-388

  Refoios Camejo, Rodrigo ^a,b   McGrath, Clare ^a   Herings, Ron ^b,c   Meerding, Willem Jan ^d   Rutten, Frans ^b  

^a PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c PHARMO INSTITUTE FOR DRUG OUTCOMES RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^d Interhealth   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness; health technology assessment; pharmaceutical innovation; pharmaceutical price erosion; pharmaceutical research and development

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; BENDROFLUMETHIAZIDE; BUMETANIDE; ENALAPRIL MALEATE; FUROSEMIDE; LISINOPRIL; LOSARTAN POTASSIUM; RAMIPRIL;

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG RESEARCH; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; AGED; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEES, PHARMACEUTICAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMIC; RESEARCH;

EID: 84858633854     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.1736     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Hoyle M. Future drug prices and cost-effectiveness analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:589-602. (Pubitemid 351871554)
2. Refoios Camejo RC, McGrath C, Herings R. A dynamic perspective on pharmaceutical competition, drug development and cost effectiveness. Health Policy 2011;100:18-24.
3. Scherer F. The link between gross profitability and pharmaceutical R&D spending. Health Aff 2001;20:216-20. (Pubitemid 33710354)
4. DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151-85. (Pubitemid 36279392)
5. Luce B, Mauskopf J, Sloan, F, et al. The return on investment in health care: from 1980 to 2000. Value Health 2006;3:146-56.
6. Jena A, Philipson T. Cost effectiveness analysis and innovation. J Health Econ 2008;27:1224-36.
7. Jena A, Philipson T. Cost-effectiveness as a price control. Health Aff 2007;26:696-703.
8. Pharmacy & Industry Group. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. 2010. Available from: http://www.dh.gov. uk/prod-consum-dh/groups/dh-digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/ dh-122793.pdf. [Accessed May 9, 2011].
9. Hoyle M. Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2011;29:1-15.
10. Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, et al. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospect studies. Lancet 2002;360:1903-13. (Pubitemid 35472129)
11. Cutler D, Long G, Berndt E, et al. The value of antihypertensive drugs: a perspective on medical innovation. Health Aff 2007;26:97-110.
12. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London, UK, 2008.
13. D'Agostino R, Russel M, Huse D, et al. Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: new results from the Framingham study. Am Heart J 2000;139:272-81. (Pubitemid 30090804)
14. Brindle P, Emberson J, Lampe F, et al. Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2003;327:1267-73.
15. Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:1-160.
16. Hypertension: management of hypertension in adults in primary care: partial update. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, Royal College of Physicians: London, UK, 2008.
17. EphRMA anatomical classification guidelines 2009. 2009, European Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Association. Available from: http://www.ephmra.org/PDF/ATC%20Guidelines%202009.pdf [Accessed June 20, 2009].
18. Law M, Wald N, Morris J. Lowering blood pressure to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke: a new preventive strategy. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-94.
19. Drummond M, Wilson D, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2007;23:36-42. (Pubitemid 46648298)
20. McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs: a comment on Drummond et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:397-401. (Pubitemid 46956891)
21. Drummond M, Wilson D, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs: a response to McCabe et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:401-4. (Pubitemid 46956892)
22. Wertheimer A, Levy R, O'Connor t. Too many drugs? The clinical and economic value of incremental innovations. In: Farquhar I, Summers K, Sorkin A, eds. Investing in Health: The Social and Economic Benefits of Health Care Innovation. Elsevier Science Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2006.