INEAS's Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vemurafenib: Paving the Way for Value-Based Pricing in Tunisia.

BRAF V600 Tunisia advanced melanoma cost utility cost-effectiveness health technology assessment market access targeted therapy value-based pricing vemurafenib

Journal

Journal of market access & health policy
ISSN: 2001-6689
Titre abrégé: J Mark Access Health Policy
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101670174

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2024
Historique:
received: 16 05 2024
revised: 24 07 2024
accepted: 16 08 2024
medline: 28 10 2024
pubmed: 28 10 2024
entrez: 28 10 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The Tunisian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body, INEAS, conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of vemurafenib in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. The objective of this analysis was to enable the use of value-based pricing as a new approach to price negotiation. This study was part of a broader HTA report that was prepared in response to a joint request from the regulatory authorities and the CNAM, Tunisia's compulsory insurance scheme. Our analysis was based on a probabilistic Markov cohort model that calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with vemurafenib compared to the standard of care from a public payer perspective. The CEA indicated that vemurafenib provides a gain of 0.38 life years (1.78 vs. 1.4) for an incremental cost of USD 101,106.62 from the perspective of the main public payer (CNAM). This study revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 163,311.40 USD/QALY and 163,911.46 USD/QALY, respectively, from the CNAM and public health facilities' perspectives. Vemurafenib cannot be considered cost-effective in terms of what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness to pay (WTP) in Tunisia. A significant price reduction would be necessary to bring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to an acceptable level.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39464179
doi: 10.3390/jmahp12040023
pii: jmahp-12-00023
pmc: PMC11503406
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

294-305

Informations de copyright

© 2024 by the authors.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of InterestThe authors state that they had no competing conflicts of interest while working on this project. NS contributed to this project as part of her work when she was employed by IECS. Currently she is employed by Novartis. Her current employment has no influence on her previous contribution to this project.

Auteurs

Mouna Jameleddine (M)

The National Authority for Assessment and Accreditation in Healthcare (INEAS), Tunis 1002, Tunisia; n.harzallah@ineas.tn (N.H.).

Nabil Harzallah (N)

The National Authority for Assessment and Accreditation in Healthcare (INEAS), Tunis 1002, Tunisia; n.harzallah@ineas.tn (N.H.).

Hela Grati (H)

The National Authority for Assessment and Accreditation in Healthcare (INEAS), Tunis 1002, Tunisia; n.harzallah@ineas.tn (N.H.).

Marie Christine Odabachian Jebali (MC)

The National Authority for Assessment and Accreditation in Healthcare (INEAS), Tunis 1002, Tunisia; n.harzallah@ineas.tn (N.H.).

Jaafar Chemli (J)

The National Authority for Assessment and Accreditation in Healthcare (INEAS), Tunis 1002, Tunisia; n.harzallah@ineas.tn (N.H.).

Sebastián García Martí (S)

Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires 1414, Argentina.

Natalie Soto (N)

Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires 1414, Argentina.

Andrés Pichon-Riviere (A)

Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires 1414, Argentina.

Chokri Hamouda (C)

The National Authority for Assessment and Accreditation in Healthcare (INEAS), Tunis 1002, Tunisia; n.harzallah@ineas.tn (N.H.).

Classifications MeSH