A survey conducted in four hospitals located in the city of St. Petersburg revealed that the commonly used perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) did not follow (in 88% of cases) the guidelines approved for national clinical practice.

Aim. To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the commonly practiced PAP among patients with clean, clean-contaminated and contaminated surgical wounds in a multidisciplinary hospital.

Materials and methods. The PAP cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the data from a multicenter epidemiological survey and previously conducted studies. The Markov model was used to compare the effectiveness and safety of the commonly used PAP with that recommended by the clinical practice guidelines. The rate of surgical site infection (SSI) and antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) were chosen for the endpoints.

Results. The costs associated with a single case of PAP according to the clinical practice guidelines was 3.5 times less than that associated with the PAP used in the common practice (RUB 4913,67 and 17837,71 respectively). The present analysis demonstrates that the PAP recommended by the clinical practice guidelines was more cost-effective as compared with the commonly practiced PAP.

Conclusion. Regular epidemiological monitoring is required to improve effectiveness and safety of the existing PAP practice. 

Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of fixed-dose combinations (FDC) vilanterol / fluticasone furoate vs budesonide / formoterol was needed to identify the preferable FDC for asthma management.

Study objective: to identify the preferable FDC of inhaled corticosteroid/ longacting beta agonist combinations (ICS/LABA) for the treatment of moderate or severe asthma in Russia. Materials and

Methods. Retrospective comparative pharmacoeconomic study; cost-minimization analysis and budget-impact analysis.

Results. The present analysis shows that the 12-month direct medical costs for the treatment of asthma using vilanterol / fluticasone furoate and budesonide / formoterol are 29,276 and 40,447 RUR per patient, respectively. The direct costs of treatment with vilanterol / fluticasone furoate are less than those for budesonide / formoterol by 28%. The annual health budget savings that result from replacing budesonide / formoterol by vilanterol / fluticasone furoate are 1,151,512,731 RUR per 100,000 patients.

Conclusion. The present results indicate that the vilanterol / fluticasone furoate FDC is preferable (more beneficial) as compared with the budesonide / formoterol FDC. 

The aim of our study was to conduct a pharmacoeconomic and cost analysis of the therapeutic use of anti-HIV drugs.

Material and methods. The study was based on the documented medical histories of HIV-infected patients; it also incorporated the data from the state-sponsored auctions and contracts for drug purchase, as well as the information from the website poisklekarstv.ru with recommendations for Moscow pharmacies. Both statistical and analytical approaches were used.

Results. We found that all drugs needed for the treatment of patients with HIV infection are available in Russia. These drugs appear in the updated list of the treatment standards approved for domestic use in Russia.

Conclusion. The difference between the government-sponsored prices and the retail prices of these medications has an impact on the costs of ant-HIV therapy.

The aim of the study is to assess the economic feasibility of using pomalidomide in patients with recurrent and refractory multiple myeloma (MM), who had received previous 1st and 2nd (bortezomib and lenalidomide) line therapy.

Materials and Methods. In this study, the methods of cost analysis, cost – effectiveness analysis, budget impact analysis (in relation to the State Guarantees Program) as well as sensitivity-toprice-change analysis were used.

Results. The results indicate that the pomalidomide therapy in patients with recurrent and refractory MM who had previously received 1st and 2nd (bortezomib and lenalidomide) line therapy is clinically beneficial and also economically feasible in terms of public procurement. If introduced this program can save the Federal budget up to 232 785 963 rubles.

Conclusion. According to the budget impact analysis, if pomalidomide (Innovid) is included in the list of public procurement, then the Federal spending on the treatment of MM with pomalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib will be less by 12% compared to the MM treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide only.

Among the most important aspects of the health policy are the methods for pricing of medicines, especially of innovative medicines. In many countries, the “therapeutic value” of a medicine is commonly used as a major criterion in negotiations on medicine prices. The existing tools for assessing the therapeutic value of medicines are not used in the Russian Federation. Here we propose a method for estimating the therapeutic value of innovative medicines based on the multi-criterial analysis.