Lesley Tilson

Organised colorectal cancer screening is likely to be cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness results alone may not help policy makers to make decisions about programme feasibility or service providers to plan programme delivery. For these purposes, estimates of the impact on the health services of actually introducing screening in the target population would be helpful. However, these types of analyses are rarely reported. As an illustration of such an approach, we estimated annual health service resource requirements and health outcomes over the first decade of a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Ireland. A Markov state-transition model of colorectal neoplasia natural history was used. Three core screening scenarios were considered: (a) flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) once at age 60, (b) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) at 55–74 years, and (c) biennial faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) at 55–74 years. Three alternative FIT roll-out scenarios were also investigated relating to age-restricted screening (55–64 years) and staggered age-based roll-out across the 55–74 age group. Parameter estimates were derived from literature review, existing screening programmes, and expert opinion. Results were expressed in relation to the 2008 population (4.4 million people, of whom 700,800 were aged 55–74). FIT-based screening would deliver the greatest health benefits, averting 164 colorectal cancer cases and 272 deaths in year 10 of the programme. Capacity would be required for 11,095-14,820 diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies annually, compared to 381–1,053 with FSIG-based, and 967–1,300 with gFOBT-based, screening. With FIT, in year 10, these colonoscopies would result in 62 hospital admissions for abdominal bleeding, 27 bowel perforations and one death. Resource requirements for pathology, diagnostic radiology, radiotherapy and colorectal resection were highest for FIT. Estimates depended on screening uptake. Alternative FIT roll-out scenarios had lower resource requirements. While FIT-based screening would quite quickly generate attractive health outcomes, it has heavy resource requirements. These could impact on the feasibility of a programme based on this screening modality. Staggered age-based roll-out would allow time to increase endoscopy capacity to meet programme requirements. Resource modelling of this type complements conventional cost-effectiveness analyses and can help inform policy making and service planning.

There are concerns that proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are being over prescribed in both primary and secondary care. This study aims to establish potential cost savings in a community drug scheme for a one year period according to published clinical and cost-effective guidelines for PPI prescribing.

Management options for colorectal cancer have expanded in recent years. We estimated average lifetime cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland in 2008, from the health care payer perspective.

Objective: To describe the pharmacoeconomic assessment process in Ireland and to provide examples of recent appraisals and the subsequent impact on pricing and reimbursement decisions. Method: The pharmacoeconomic appraisals conducted by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) between September 2006 and February 2009 were reviewed. The NCPE recommendations and subsequent reimbursement decisions by the Health Service Executive (HSE) were recorded. Recommendations made by the NCPE were compared with those of UK agencies. The duration of the NCPE pharmacoeconomic process and the time from marketing authorization to reimbursement was estimated. The budget impact assessments from the pharmaceutical companies were reviewed and compared for consistency. Results: The NCPE conducted 12 single technology appraisals during the study period. Eight of the medicines assessed were either recommended as a cost-effective use of resources or recommended with certain restrictions, and were funded by the HSE. Of the four medicines that were not considered cost effective, two were reimbursed after a price reduction was negotiated and the remaining two were not. The NCPE recommendations concurred with those of the UK agencies for the majority of appraisals, with the exception of sunitinib and lapatinib. The average duration of the NCPE process was 2.7 months. The average time from marketing authorization to reimbursement was 7 months. The review of budget impact assessments highlighted a high degree of variability between submissions. Conclusions: The findings of this review highlight the efficiency of the pharmacoeconomic process and the acceptance of the NCPE recommendations by the HSE for pricing and reimbursement decisions. NCPE recommendations broadly concurred with those of UK agencies for the majority of appraisals.