Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics

The Korean Pediatric Society (대한소아청소년과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Economic evaluation of a weekly administration of a sustained-release injection of recombinant human growth hormone for the treatment of children with growth hormone deficiency

소아 성장호르몬결핍증 치료에 사용되는 성장호르몬 서방형 주사제의 경제성 평가

  • Kang, Hye-Young (Graduate School of Public Health, Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Duk Hee (Department of Pediatrics, Severance Children's Hospital, Yonsei University) ;
  • Yang, Sei-Won (Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Yoon-Nam (Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Miseon (Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University)
  • 강혜영 (연세대학교 보건대학원, 연세대학교 보건정책 및 관리 연구소) ;
  • 김덕희 (연세대학교 세브란스 어린이병원 소아과) ;
  • 양세원 (서울대학교 의과대학 소아과교실) ;
  • 김윤남 (연세대학교 보건대학원) ;
  • 김미선 (연세대학교 보건대학원)
  • Received : 2009.06.29
  • Accepted : 2009.10.01
  • Published : 2009.11.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose:From a societal perspective, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a novel sustained-release injection of recombinant human growth hormone (GH) administered on a weekly basis compared with that of the present daily GH injection for the treatment of children with GH deficiency. Methods:Health-related utility for GH therapy was measured based on the visual analogue scale. During July 2008, caregivers of 149 children receiving GH therapy form 2 study sites participated in a web-based questionnaire survey. The survey required the caregivers to rate their current subjective utility with daily GH injections or expected utility of weekly GH injections. Because there was no difference in the costs of the daily and weekly therapies, for the purposes of this study, only drug acquisition costs were considered. Results:Switching from daily to weekly injection of GH increased the utility from 0.584 to 0.784 and incurred an extra cost of 4,060,811 Korean won (KW) per year. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) for a base case was 20,305,055 KW per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Scenario analyses showed that the ICUR ranged from 15,751,198 to 25,489,929 KW per QALY. Conclusion:The ICUR for a base case and worst case scenario analyses ranged from 0.85 to 1.37-times per capita gross domestic product of Korea, which is considered to be within the generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold. Thus, it is concluded that switching from daily to weekly injection of GH would be cost-effective.

목 적:소아 성장호르몬결핍증의 저신장 치료에 사용되는 성장호르몬 생물학적 제제인 서방형 주사제의 비용-효과성을 사회적 관점에서 기존 매일 주사제와 비교하여 평가하고자 한다. 방 법:성장 호르몬 치료를 받는 환아를 대상으로 시각화 척도 방법에 의해 건강 관련 효용을 측정하였다. 2008년 7월, 이 연구에 참여한 2개 병원에서 저성장증 치료를 받고 있는 149명의 환아 보호자에게 매일 주사제에 대한 효용과 주 1회 주사제를 사용할 경우 기대되는 효용을 인터넷을 통해 설문조사 하였다. 성장호르몬 주사요법 중 매일 주사제와 주 1회 주사제 투여에 소요되는 직․간접 비용은 차이가 없으므로, 두 제형의 의약품비만을 비교하였다. 결 과:매일 주사제에서 주 1회 주사제로 전환할 경우 예상되는 효용값은 0.584에서 0.784로 증가하며, 연평균 추가비용은 4,060,811원이 발생한다. 점증적 비용-효용비는 20,304,555원/QALY (quality-adjusted life year gained)로 계산되었다. 시나리오 분석 결과, 점증적 비용-효용비는 최소 15,751,198원/QALY에서 최대 25,489,929원/QALY이다. 결 론:Base case 및 시나리오 분석결과에서 제시하는 점증적 비용-효용비는 우리 나라 1인당 GDP의 0.85-1.37배 범위 내에 있으므로 매우 안정적으로 비용-효과성이 있는 것으로 판단된다. 따라서, 매일 주사제에서 주1회 주사제로의 투약방법 변경은 비용-효과적이라 할 수 있으며, 주 1회 주사제가 추가 비용을 부담하더라도 경제성이 우수하다고 결론지을 수 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : LG Life Sciences

References

  1. Kim YI, Kim ES, Son JG. Human growth hormone. Seoul: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, 2002
  2. Grumbach MM. Growth hormone therapy and the short end of the stick. N Eng J Med 1988;319:238-41 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198807283190408
  3. Yang SW. Management of children with short stature. J Korean Endocr Soc 2003;18:561-70
  4. Silverman BL, Blethen SL, Reiter EO, Attie KM, Neuwirth RB, Ford KM. A long-acting human growth hormone (Nutropin Depot): efficacy and safety following two years of treatment in children with growth hormone deficiency. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2002;15 Suppl 2:715-22
  5. Lee BC, Ko CW, Kim DH, Yang SW, Yoo HW, Chung WY. Clinical effects of E cole derived authentic recombinant human growth hormone(DA-3002) in children with growth hormone deficiency. J Korean Endocr Soc 1998;13:526-35
  6. Bakker B, Rosenfeld RG. Compliance and persistence in pediatric and adult patients receiving growth hormone therapy. Endocr Pract 2008;14:143-54 https://doi.org/10.4158/EP.14.2.143
  7. Chiarelli F, Veimo D, Tauber M, Langham S, Dumas H, Johansson L, et al. Observations of non-adherence to recombinant human growth hormone therapy in clinical practice. Clin Ther 2008;30:307-16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.02.017
  8. LG Life Science. An open-label, active controlled, randomized, parallel-group, multi-centre study to assess efficacy and safety after 6 months-administration of SR-hGH (sustained-release human growth hormone) 0.5 mg/kg/wk and Eutropin inj.(immediate-release human growth hormone) 0.21 mg/kg/wk to improve the growth failure in pre- pubertal children with growth hormone deficiency. 2007
  9. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Ch 6. Cost-Utility Analysis. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York. Oxford University Press, 2005a:147
  10. Lim SJ, Kang HY, Kang YJ, Lee BS, Park HM, Shin DH. Measuring utility for menopausal systems based on time trade-off and visual analogue scale methods. Korean J of Health Policy & Administration 2007;17:113-33 https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2007.17.4.113
  11. Jnsson B, Mavros P, Gerth WC, Kong SX, Eichler H. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004;7:518-28 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75003.x
  12. Torrance GW, SiggelJE, Luce BR. Framing and designing the cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Seigel JE, Ressell LB, Weinstein MC, eds., Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford, New York. Oxford University Press, 1996: 54
  13. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jonsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value in Health 2004;7:518-28 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75003.x
  14. World Health Organization. Choosing interventions that are cost effective (WHO-CHOICE). available at: http://www. who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/index.html. accessed on Dec. 18, 2008
  15. Won JK, Markowski DJ, Sclar DA, Skaer TL. Utility of a sustained-release formulation for antihypertensive therapy. J Hum Hypertens 1993;7:519-22
  16. Khan ZM, Keskinaslan A, Benedict A, Brixner D, Muszbek N. The economic consequences of noncompliance in cardiovascular disease and related conditions: a literature review. Int J Clin Pract 2008;62:338-51 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01683.x
  17. Ferris DG, Miller MD. Measurement of subjective phenomena in primary care research: the Visual Analogue Scale. The Fam Pract Res J 1993;13:15-24
  18. Philip BK. Parametric statistics for evaluation of the visual analog scale. Anesth Analg 1990;71:710 https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199012000-00027
  19. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Ch 6. Cost-Utility Analysis. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York. Oxford University Press, 2005b:151-3