Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart Failure

The Program in Social and Administrative Pharmacy at the University of Minnesota recently released its proposed guidelines for formulary evaluation. The guidelines were focused on ensuring that comparative claims made for pharmaceutical products and devices rested on a credible evidence base. The ar...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Paul C Langley
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing 2016-09-01
Series:INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/view/449
_version_ 1818750091028070400
author Paul C Langley
author_facet Paul C Langley
author_sort Paul C Langley
collection DOAJ
description The Program in Social and Administrative Pharmacy at the University of Minnesota recently released its proposed guidelines for formulary evaluation. The guidelines were focused on ensuring that comparative claims made for pharmaceutical products and devices rested on a credible evidence base. The argument was put forward that if value claims for clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes were to be accepted then they had to be empirically evaluable. The purpose of this commentary is to explore alternative modeled claims for Entresto, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, versus the standard of care with an ACE inhibitor in patients with chronic heart failure. Two models are compared: a lifetime cost-per-QALY model and a 3-year cost and budget impact model. The primary reason for this comparison is the puzzling feature that for a product which is over 120 time as expensive compared to the standard of care (Entresto $380 per month vs. ACE inhibitor $3 per month) the modeled claim can be made that the product is, in willingness to pay terms, cost-effective. The analysis illustrates that, perhaps not surprisingly, different models can generate quite different perspectives on the presumption of ‘cost-effectiveness’. In the present case the simple decision model yields a breakeven monthly cost for Entresto of only $23.74. If modeled claims are to be useful for formulary decision making, then we need to eschew ‘black box’ models with non-evaluable claims in favor of those models that yield credible, evaluable and replicable claims that can support defensible product placement and pricing decisions. Conflict of Interest None   Type: Commentary
first_indexed 2024-12-18T04:14:09Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1d5af9ee7d5440abaa928b171be1de40
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2155-0417
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-18T04:14:09Z
publishDate 2016-09-01
publisher University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing
record_format Article
series INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy
spelling doaj.art-1d5af9ee7d5440abaa928b171be1de402022-12-21T21:21:24ZengUniversity of Minnesota Libraries PublishingINNOVATIONS in Pharmacy2155-04172016-09-017310.24926/iip.v7i3.449Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart FailurePaul C Langley0University of MinnesotaThe Program in Social and Administrative Pharmacy at the University of Minnesota recently released its proposed guidelines for formulary evaluation. The guidelines were focused on ensuring that comparative claims made for pharmaceutical products and devices rested on a credible evidence base. The argument was put forward that if value claims for clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes were to be accepted then they had to be empirically evaluable. The purpose of this commentary is to explore alternative modeled claims for Entresto, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, versus the standard of care with an ACE inhibitor in patients with chronic heart failure. Two models are compared: a lifetime cost-per-QALY model and a 3-year cost and budget impact model. The primary reason for this comparison is the puzzling feature that for a product which is over 120 time as expensive compared to the standard of care (Entresto $380 per month vs. ACE inhibitor $3 per month) the modeled claim can be made that the product is, in willingness to pay terms, cost-effective. The analysis illustrates that, perhaps not surprisingly, different models can generate quite different perspectives on the presumption of ‘cost-effectiveness’. In the present case the simple decision model yields a breakeven monthly cost for Entresto of only $23.74. If modeled claims are to be useful for formulary decision making, then we need to eschew ‘black box’ models with non-evaluable claims in favor of those models that yield credible, evaluable and replicable claims that can support defensible product placement and pricing decisions. Conflict of Interest None   Type: Commentaryhttps://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/view/449heart failure, Entresto, cost-effectiveness, hospitalization costs, ED costs
spellingShingle Paul C Langley
Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart Failure
INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy
heart failure, Entresto, cost-effectiveness, hospitalization costs, ED costs
title Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart Failure
title_full Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart Failure
title_fullStr Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart Failure
title_full_unstemmed Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart Failure
title_short Cost-Effectiveness and Formulary Evaluation: Imaginary Worlds and Entresto Claims in Heart Failure
title_sort cost effectiveness and formulary evaluation imaginary worlds and entresto claims in heart failure
topic heart failure, Entresto, cost-effectiveness, hospitalization costs, ED costs
url https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/view/449
work_keys_str_mv AT paulclangley costeffectivenessandformularyevaluationimaginaryworldsandentrestoclaimsinheartfailure