Pharmacoeconomic Research As an Area for Drugs Comparison

OBJECTIVES: We performed analysis of the pharmacoeconomic studies published during 5-years period (2017-2022) in Russian databases, taking into account therapeutic areas and methods of pharmacoeconomic research

METHODS: Informational search was performed in Russian databases (Cyberleninca, Elibrary and others). Articles dealing with pharmacoeconomic research were selected. The following data was analysed: therapeutic areas of research; methods of research (Cost-effectiveness analysis – CEA, budget impact analysis – BIA, cost minimization analysis – CMA, cost-of-illness analysis COI), types of costs (direct medical costs, indirect medical costs or both); the status of studied drug (inclusion or non-inclusion in the “List of vital and essential medicines” acting in Russia).

RESULTS: In total 118 articles were selected. TOP-5 therapeutic areas of interests among all studies were: oncology, cardiology, infectious diseases, ophthalmology, and endocrinology. The most in demand methods of pharmacoeconomic studies were BIA, CEA, CMA, COI. CEA method was used in 56% cases and BIA was used in 26% cases, 15% of studies involved CMA and only 3% of works – COI. In 66% the study drug was already included in the “List of vital and essential medicines”. Researchers always included direct medical costs in the clinical and economic analysis, at the same time, in 39% cases indirect medical costs were also included.

CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of both direct and indirect medical costs gives more opportunities for effective clinical and economic comparison of medical agents, using BIA, CEA, CMA, COI. It is important to emphasize the necessity to provide health-economics outcomes for all new drugs submitted for the “List of vital and essential medicines”.