ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS COSTS DURING THE THERAPY

Download full text PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29296/25419218-2018-08-07
Issue: 
8
Year: 
2018

V.S. Krysanova(1, 2), I.S. Krysanov(3, 4), M.V. Zhuravleva(1), K.G. Gurevich(5), V.Yu. Ermakova(1, 4) 1-I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 8, Trubetskaya St., Build. 2, Moscow 119991, Russian Federation; 2-Clinical Trials and Healthcare Technology Assessment scientific research Center of Moscow Department of Healthcare, 12, Minskaya St., Build. 2, Moscow 121096, Russian Federation; 3-Medical Institute of Continuing Education, Moscow State University of Food Production, 11, Volokolamskoye Shosse, Moscow 125080, Russian Federation; 4-Research Institute for Clinical and Economic Expertise and Pharmacoeconomics, 21/6, Novomytishchinsky Prospect, Mytishchi, Moscow Region 141008, Russian Federation; 5-A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, 20, Delegatskaya St., Build. 1, Moscow 127473, Russian Federation

Introduction. The development of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the additional factor in increasing the direct costs for treating this or that disease, which can neutralize the difference in the cost of drug therapy during comparative clinical and economic studies. Objective: to conduct an economic assessment of expenditures on ADRs during drug therapy, by using Russian and clinical and economic studies as an example. Material and methods. The 2014 to 2018 works estimating the cost of ADR correction were sought in the eLibrary.ru database. The cost was estimated for the following nosological entities: gastroenterology, infectious diseases, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, hematologic oncology, oncology, otorhinolaryngology, pulmonology, rheumatology, transplantology, surgery, and endocrinology. The search could select 6 works. Results. According to the number of studies, oncology (25 publications) headed the list of the nosological entities presented, rheumatology (8 publications) was next, and cardiology (6 publications) ranked third. At the same time, the cost of correction within 1 year for oncology amounted to about 1.7 million rubles; that for rheumatology and cardiology was about 146 and about 86 thousand rubles, respectively. The expenditure on ADR correction in the structure of direct medical costs accounted for 1 to 10% of the total cost estimates for treatment. Conclusion. The presented literature review demonstrates the importance of estimating the cost of ADR correction during drug therapy, as they make a considerable contribution to the structure of direct costs for the treatment of various diseases.
Keywords: 
adverse drug reaction
side effect
expenditures
clinical and economic study
References: 
  1. Kulikov A.Yu., Komarov I.A. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz lekarstvennogo sredstva «Beyodaym» (pertuzumab+trastuzumab [nabor]) v lechenii metastaticheskogo raka molochnoy zhelezy u bol`nyh s HER2+ formoy zabolevaniya. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2015; 3 (2): 32–5.
  2. Kulikov A.Yu., Komarov I.A. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz lekarstvennogo sredstva «Kadsila» (trastuzumab e`mtanzin) v lechenii raka molochnoy zhelezy u bol`nyh s HER2+ formoy zabolevaniya. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2015; 3 (2): 24–7.
  3. Kolbin A.S., Kurylev A.A., Proskurin M.A., Balykina Yu.E. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya denosumaba u pacientov, stradayushhih rakom molochnoy zhelezy s metastazami v kosti. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2015; 1: 10–6.
  4. Zyryanov S.K., Belousov D.Yu. Analiz «vliyaniya na byudzhet» e`ribulina u pacientov s metastaticheskim rakom molochnoy zhelezy. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2015; 4: 64–72.
  5. Kulikov A.Yu., Petrovskiy A.V., Rybchenko Yu.V., Skripnik A.R. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya lekarstvennogo preparata «Lapatinib» pri lechenii raka molochnoy zhelezy s HER2+ opuholevoy e`kspressiey. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2016; 4 (1): 53–60.
  6. Krysanov I.S. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya liposomal`nogo pegilirovannogo doksorubicina («Keliks»®) dlya lecheniya metastaticheskogo raka molochnoy zhelezy u bol`nyh s povyshennym riskom kardiologicheskih oslozhneniy. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2016; 1: 25–32.
  7. Kolbin A.S., Kurylev A.A., Balykina Yu.E., Proskurin M.A., Nashletashvili D.R. Kliniko-e`konomicheskaya ocenka primeneniya trastuzumab e`mtazina v sravnenii s kombinaciey lapatinib+kapecitabin u pacientok s HER2 polozhitel`nym rakom molochnoy zhelezy s metastaticheskim porazheniem golovnogo mozga. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2017; 2: 4–11.
  8. Mazin P.V., Sheshunov I.V., Mazina N.K., Markova E.M. Kliniko-e`konomicheskaya ocenka e`ffektivnosti e`ribulina pri sarkome myagkih tkaney po dannym meta-analiza. Farmakoe`konomika. Sovremennaya farmakoe`konomika i farmakoe`pidemiologiya,2017; 10 (1): 11–8. http://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2017.10.1.011-018
  9. Kulikov A.Yu., Zinchuk I.Yu., Pavlov P.V. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya lekarstvennogo sredstva «Krizotinib» v pervoy linii himioterapii ALK-polozhitel`nogo nemelkokletochnogo raka legkogo. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2014; 2 (1): 21–4.
  10. Kulikov A.Yu., Rybchenko Yu.V. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz lekarstvennogo sredstva «Zhavlor» (vinflunin) u bol`nyh s urotelial`nym perehodno-kletochnym rakom, rezistentnyh k rezhimam na osnove platiny. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2015; 3 (3): 79–84.
  11. Kolbin A.S., Kurylev A.A., Pavlysh A.V. Sravnitel`naya kliniko-e`konomicheskaya ocenka kabazitaksela i abiraterona pri rake predstatel`noy zhelezy po rezul`tatam klinicheskih issledovaniy i dannyh real`noy praktiki. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2015; 1: 18–31.
  12. Avksent`ev N.A., Frolov M.Yu. Farmakoe`konomicheskoe issledovanie primeneniya preparata «Vezomni» (tamsulozin s kontroliruemym vysvobozhdeniem+solifenacin) pri narusheniyah mocheispuskaniya, svyazannyh s dobrokachestvennoy giperplaziey predstatel`noy zhelezy. Farmakoe`konomika. Sovremennaya farmakoe`konomika i farmakoe`pidemiologiya, 2016; 9 (2): 3–10. http://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2016.9.2.003-010
  13. Kolbin A.S., Vilyum I.A., Balykina Yu.E., Proskurin M.A. Ocenka medicinskoy tehnologii himioterapii kolorektal`nogo raka s ispol`zovaniem aflibercepta. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2015; 4: 3–14.
  14. Kulikov A.Yu., Ugrehelidze D.T., Larionova V.B., Snegovoy A.V. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya preparatov granulocitarnyh koloniestimuliruyushhih faktorov v profilaktike febril`noy neytropenii u pacientov s onkologicheskimi zabolevaniyami v usloviyah zdravoohraneniya Rossiyskoy Federacii. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2016; 4 (1): 188–94.
  15. Kulikov A.Yu. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz vnedreniya lekarstvennogo sredstva «Aksitinib» v shemy lecheniya metastaticheskogo pochechno-kletochnogo raka. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2014; 2 (3): 71–6.
  16. Kolbin A.S., Kurylev A.A., Pavlysh A.V., Proskurin M.A., Balykina Yu.E. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz lekarstvennyh sredstv, primenyaemyh v pervoy linii targetnoy terapii metastaticheskogo raka pochki. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2014; 2 (3): 14–20.
  17. Kulikov A.Yu., Pochuprina A.A. Farmakoe`konomicheskaya ocenka primeneniya lekarstvennogo preparata «Dabrafenib» u pacientov s nerezektabel`noy i metastaticheskoy melanomoy kozhi s mutaciey gena BRAF V600. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2016; 4 (1): 102-8.
  18. Kulikov A.Yu., Babiy V.V. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya lekarstvennogo sredstva «Nivolumab» u ranee ne poluchavshih lecheniya bol`nyh s neoperabel`noy melanomoy III–IV stadii i mutaciey BRAF na territorii Rossiyskoy Federacii. Farmakoe`konomika: teoriya i praktika, 2017; 5 (2): 41–6.
  19. Kolbin A.S., Kurylev, A.A., Balykina, Yu.E., Proskurin, M.A. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya vemurafeniba i dabrafeniba u pacientov s neoperabel`noy ili metastaticheskoy melanomoy s mutaciey BRAF V600. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2017; 1: 11–9.
  20. Kosolapov E.G., Kochenkov F.S., Zyryanov S.K., Gladkov O.A. Kliniko-e`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya preparata «Pembrolizumab» pri nerezektabel`noy i metastaticheskoy melanome po sravneniyu s targetnoy terapiey. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika, 2017; 2: 12–24.
  21. Ignat`eva V.I., Fedyaev D.V. Kliniko-e`konomicheskiy analiz monoterapii nivolumabom pri mestno rasprostranennom ili metastaticheskom nemelkokletochnom rake legkogo u pacientov posle predshestvuyushhey himioterapii. Medicinskie tehnologii. Ocenka i vybor, 2017; 1: 46–58.
  22. Fedyaev D.V., Zyryanov S.K. Kliniko-e`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya afatiniba i gefitiniba pri lechenii raka legkogo. Medicinskie tehnologii. Ocenka i vybor, 2018; 1 (31): 68–84.
  23. Derkach E.V., Abashin S.Yu. Ocenka e`konomicheskoy celesoobraznosti primeneniya lenvatiniba v kombinacii s e`verolimusom u pacientov s disseminirovannym pochechno-kletochnym rakom v Rossiyskoy Federacii. Medicinskie tehnologii. Ocenka i vybor, 2018; 1 (31): 85–94.
  24. Kolbin A.S., Frolov M.Yu., Kurylev A.A., Proskurin M.A., Balykina Yu.E. Farmakoe`konomicheskiy analiz primeneniya e`verolimusa po sravneniyu s aksitinibom vo vtoroy linii pri metastaticheskom rake pochki. Klinicheskaya farmakologiya i terapiya, 2015; 24 (1): 92–6.
  25. Frolov M.Yu., Krysanov I.S., Krysanova V.S. Kliniko-e`konomicheskiy analiz e`ffektivnosti primeneniya preparata «Nivolumab» (Opdivo®) v kachestve monoterapii rasprostranennogo pochechno-kletochnogo raka u vzroslyh pacientov posle predshestvuyushhey sistemnoy terapii. Onkourologiya, 2017; 13 (1): 53–66. http://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2017-13-1-53-66