Comparative review of methodologies for estimating the cost of adverse drug reactions in the Russian Federation and Brazil

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The aim of the review article was to highlight the methodologies for assessing the financial costs of adverse drug reactions exemplified by the Russian Federation and Brazil.

Materials and methods: for a comparative analysis, materials from open sources were used. The study of the experience of methods used for assessing the burden of adverse drug reactions, was carried out using the system for calculating payments for medical care by clinical-statistical and clinical-profile groups, the methodology for assessing the severity of adverse events of the US National Cancer Institute, drug-associated problems, and “the decision tree” model.

Results. When comparing the costs of ADR management in the Russian Federation and Brazil, the following results have been obtained: in the Russian Federation, the “cost” of reaction can be estimated only for a limited number of nosological groups that are regulated by the classification of diseases by clinical and statistical groups; in Brazil, when predicting the costs of adverse reactions management, the combination of “the decision tree” method and the Delphi method is used. In the Russian Federation, the cost of the 3rd and above severity adverse event (according to CTCAE v. 4.03), varies from 26,849.22 up to 26,196.37 RUB in the North-West region (St. Petersburg). In Brazil, the cost of ADR ranges from 13 USD (the best scenario for the patient) to 574 USD (the worst scenario for the patient), which is about 975 and 43,000 RUB, respectively. The introduction of methods that make it possible to predict the development and potential outcomes of adverse drug reactions, as well as taking into account the experiences of foreign colleagues in their modeling, will reduce economic costs in the Russian Federation at the federal level.

Conclusion: for the economic value analysis and further forecasting, an improvement of existing methodologies is required. The models used in the Russian Federation (“the decision tree”, classification of diseases by clinical groups, Markov model) do not take into account the time factor, therefore, when planning the analysis of potential costs for adverse reactions, it is necessary to reinforce the methods with such tools as QALY, YLL, and YLD.

About the authors

Gulnara I. Syraeva

First St. Petersburg State Medical University named after academician I.P. Pavlov; Research Center ”Eco-safety”

Author for correspondence.
Email: syraevagulnara@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6635-9786

clinical pharmacologist, the head of the department of quality control and quality assurance of clinical trials; postgraduate student of the Department of Clinical Pharmacology

Russian Federation, 6–8, Lev Tolstoy St., St. Petersburg, 197022; 65, Yuri Gagarin Ave., St. Petersburg, 196143

Aleksey S. Kolbin

First St. Petersburg State Medical University named after academician I.P. Pavlov; Medical Academy named after S.I. Georgievsky (structural unit) of “Crimean Federal University named after S.I. Vernadsky”

Email: alex.kolbin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1919-2909

Doctor of Sciences (Medicine), Professor, the Head of the Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Evidence-Based Medicine; Professor of the Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine

Russian Federation, 6–8, Lev Tolstoy St., St. Petersburg, 197022; 5/7, Lenin Bul., Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, 295007

Alexander V. Matveev

Medical Academy named after S.I. Georgievsky (structural unit) of “Crimean Federal University named after S.I. Vernadsky”; Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education (RMA CPE)

Email: avmcsmu@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6636-3950

Candidate of Sciences (Medicine), Associate Professor of the Department of Internal Medicine No. 1 with a course in Clinical Pharmacology; Associate Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapy department

Russian Federation, 5/7, Lenin Bul., Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, 295007; Bld. 1, 2/1, Barrikadnaya St., Moscow, 125993

Vera S. Panezhina

Research Center ”Eco-safety”

Email: panezhina.doc@gmail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5602-5536

a general practitioner, a doctor of functional diagnostics

Russian Federation, 65, Yuri Gagarin Ave., St. Petersburg, 196143

References

  1. Varpaieva IA, Lapshina SA. Modern trends in differentiated pricing in the pharmacy chain. Financial analytics: problems and solutions. 2014;40:22–34. Russian
  2. Engalycheva GN, Syubaev RD, Goryachev DV. Safety Pharmacology Studies of Medicinal Products: Evaluation of Results. The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products. 2017;7(2):92–96. doi: 10.30895/1991-2919-2017-7-2-92-97. Russian
  3. Gomon YM, Kolbin AS, Mazurenko SO, Ivanov IG. Principles of clinical and economic analysis of antimicrobial drugs. Kachestvennaya Klinicheskaya Praktika. 2019;2:35–44. doi: 10.24411/2588-0519-2019-10071. Russian
  4. Good vigilance practice of Eurasian economic union. [Access date: 11.09.2020]. Available from: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/texnreg/deptexreg/oo/Documents/.
  5. Glagolev SV, Gorelov KV, Chizhova DA. Russian pharmacovigilance in a newly regulated environment: two-year results and prospects. Remedium. Journal about the Russian market of medicines and medical equipment. 2019;3:8–14. doi: 10.21518/1561-5936-2019-3-8-14. Russian
  6. Association of Clinical Research Organizations. [Access date: 1.01.2020]. Available from: http://acto-russia.org/ files/ACTO_open_letter.pdf
  7. Shubnikova EV, Darmostukova MA, Bukatina TM, Kaperko DA, Velts NY, Kazakov AS, Snegireva II, Zhuravleva EO, Kutekhova GV. The Adverse Drug Reactions Registered During the Postmarketing Period. Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2019;7(1):15–22. doi: 10.30895/2312-7821-2019-7-1-15-22. Russian
  8. Hoseva EN, Morozova TE. Problematic aspects of the development of the pharmacovigilance system in the Russian Federation at the present stage (review). Kachestvennaya Klinicheskaya Praktika. 2013;3:40–45. Russian
  9. Kolbin A.S. [et al.]. Pharmacovigilance. Moscow: OKI: Buki-Vedi. 2019:248. Russian
  10. Federal Service for Surveillance in Healthcare. Electronic services. Automated system Pharmacovigilance. [Access date: 11.09.2020]. Available from: http://www.roszdravnadzor.ru/services/npr_ais
  11. Matveev AV, Krasheninnikov AE, Egorova EA, Konyaeva EI. Application of drug-related problems approach to analysis of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs’ safety. Pharmacy & Pharmacology. 2019;7(4):215–223. doi: 10.19163/2307- 9266-2019-7-4-215-223. Russian
  12. The Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA). [Access date: 11.09.2020]. Available from: https://www.who.int/medicines/ areas/quality_safety/regulation_legislation/WA_1.pdf
  13. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(4):397–409. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199813040-00003.
  14. Kulikov AYu, Nguyen TT, Tikhomirova AV. Modeling methodology in pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology. 2011;4:8–15. Russian
  15. Eichenberger PM, Lampert ML, Kahmann IV, van Mil JW, Hersberger KE. Classification of drug-related problems with new prescriptions using a modified PCNE classification system. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(3):362–72. doi: 10.1007/s11096-010-9377-x.
  16. Zimenkovsky AB, Ryvak TB, Khanyk LN. DRP concept as part of the philosophy of rational pharmacotherapy integrated with the pharmaceutical care system. Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmacotherapy and Medical Standardization. 2011;1–2:23–31. Ukrainian
  17. The global burden of disease study 2019. The Lancet Special Issue. [Access date 2020 Sep 11]. Available from: https: // www. thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol396no10258/ PIIS0140-6736(20)X0042-0
  18. Gomon YM, Kolbin AS, Burbello AT. Pharmacoeconomic aspects of adverse drug reactions. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapy. 2011;1:81–85. Russian
  19. de Freitas GRM, Neyeloff JL, Balbinotto Neto G, Heineck I. Drug-Related Morbidity in Brazil: A Cost-of-Illness Model. Value Health Reg Issues. 2018;17:150–157. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2018.07.002.
  20. Paula Pereda ACDB, Guidetti B. Economic Burden of Diabetes mellitus in Brazil. Working Papers, Department of Economics of University of São Paulo (FEA-USP). 2019: 32–37.
  21. Rocha KSS, Cerqueira Santos S, Boaventura TC, de Araújo DCSA, Silvestre SS, de Lyra Júnior DP. Development and content validation of an instrument to support pharmaceutical counselling for dispensing of prescribed medicines. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26:134–141. doi: 10.1111/jep.13102.
  22. Martsevich SY, Navasardjan AR, Komkova NA. Off-Label prescribing. possible causes, types and consequences. legal regulation in the Russian Federation. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2017;13(5):667–673. doi: 10.20996/181 9-6446-2017-13-5-667-674. Russian

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Figure 1 – An example of a possible Markov cycle, where Px are the probabilities of transition from one condition to another

Download (100KB)

Copyright (c) 2020 Syraeva G.I., Kolbin A.S., Matveev A.V., Panezhina V.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
 

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies