We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E14 guideline that requires a thorough QT/QTc (TQT) study for all drugs under development. We compared two pharmacoeconomic scenarios: the health effects and costs resulting from implementing ICH E14 ("regulation" scenario) vs. not implementing ICH E14 ("no regulation" scenario). We used a dynamic population model to calculate the cost-effectiveness of ICH E14 for a prototype QT-prolonging antipsychotic drug entering the US and European markets. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of regulation vs. no regulation were ~€2.4 million per sudden cardiac death prevented and ~€187,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in users of antipsychotic drugs. The main driver of cost was the requirement for electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring of users of QTc-prolonging drugs. Even when several of the assumptions in the model were varied, there were no results in favor of regulation. Our study shows that cost-effectiveness analysis of drug regulatory measures is feasible and should be considered before developing such measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bouvy et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: