Sensitivity of Cost-Effectiveness to Inclusion of Adverse Drug Events: A Scoping Review of Economic Models of Pharmacological Interventions for Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Diabetic Macular Edema.

IF 2.2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-02-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S509349
Mari Pesonen, Eila Kankaanpää
{"title":"Sensitivity of Cost-Effectiveness to Inclusion of Adverse Drug Events: A Scoping Review of Economic Models of Pharmacological Interventions for Diabetes, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Diabetic Macular Edema.","authors":"Mari Pesonen, Eila Kankaanpää","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S509349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Incorporation of adverse drug events (ADEs) is suboptimal in economic evaluation, and thus the information provided by it may be inaccurate. Better guidance on incorporating ADEs into economic evaluation prompts for exploring whether the results are sensitive to ADEs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review explored 242 cost-effectiveness models for pharmacological interventions for type 1 (T1DM) and 2 diabetes (T2DM), diabetic retinopathy (DR), and diabetic macular edema (DME), in relation to the type of ADEs included in the models (if any), whether the results were sensitive to the ADEs, and what could explain their potential impact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the analyses partly or completely including ADEs, 62% examined their impact on the results, with half of them (50%) reporting ADE-related sensitivity. The models included common to very common ADEs, and some rare but severe ones. The main reasons for excluding ADEs were low incidence (13%) and no reporting in clinical trials (13%). Many analyses reported no reason for the exclusion (53%). The analyses for T1DM and DR or DME included more severe ADEs and reported a higher ADE-related sensitivity compared to the analyses of T2DM (76,2%, 77.8%, and 46.4%, respectively). Higher incidence of ADEs (60,0%) and time trade off method (72,2%) were associated with higher ADE-related sensitivity (72,2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Incidence, condition, and the measure of utility were associated with the results being sensitive to ADEs. ADEs are an important outcome for the results of economic evaluation and better guidance on their inclusion and exclusion is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":"17 ","pages":"115-128"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11872088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S509349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Incorporation of adverse drug events (ADEs) is suboptimal in economic evaluation, and thus the information provided by it may be inaccurate. Better guidance on incorporating ADEs into economic evaluation prompts for exploring whether the results are sensitive to ADEs.

Methods: This scoping review explored 242 cost-effectiveness models for pharmacological interventions for type 1 (T1DM) and 2 diabetes (T2DM), diabetic retinopathy (DR), and diabetic macular edema (DME), in relation to the type of ADEs included in the models (if any), whether the results were sensitive to the ADEs, and what could explain their potential impact.

Results: Of the analyses partly or completely including ADEs, 62% examined their impact on the results, with half of them (50%) reporting ADE-related sensitivity. The models included common to very common ADEs, and some rare but severe ones. The main reasons for excluding ADEs were low incidence (13%) and no reporting in clinical trials (13%). Many analyses reported no reason for the exclusion (53%). The analyses for T1DM and DR or DME included more severe ADEs and reported a higher ADE-related sensitivity compared to the analyses of T2DM (76,2%, 77.8%, and 46.4%, respectively). Higher incidence of ADEs (60,0%) and time trade off method (72,2%) were associated with higher ADE-related sensitivity (72,2%).

Conclusion: Incidence, condition, and the measure of utility were associated with the results being sensitive to ADEs. ADEs are an important outcome for the results of economic evaluation and better guidance on their inclusion and exclusion is needed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纳入药物不良事件的成本-效果敏感性:糖尿病、糖尿病视网膜病变和糖尿病黄斑水肿药物干预经济模型的范围综述。
目的:在经济评价中纳入药物不良事件(ADEs)是次优的,因此它提供的信息可能不准确。将ade纳入经济评价的更好指导提示探索结果是否对ade敏感。方法:本综述探讨了242个1型糖尿病(T1DM)和2型糖尿病(T2DM)、糖尿病视网膜病变(DR)和糖尿病黄斑水肿(DME)药物干预的成本-效果模型,包括模型中ade的类型(如果有的话)、结果是否对ade敏感,以及如何解释其潜在影响。结果:在部分或完全包括ade的分析中,62%的分析检查了它们对结果的影响,其中一半(50%)报告了ade相关的敏感性。这些模型包括常见到非常常见的ade,以及一些罕见但严重的ade。排除不良事件的主要原因是发生率低(13%)和没有临床试验报告(13%)。许多分析报告没有排除的原因(53%)。与T2DM的分析相比,T1DM和DR或DME的分析包括更严重的ade,并且报告了更高的ade相关敏感性(分别为76.2%,77.8%和46.4%)。较高的ade发生率(60,0%)和时间权衡法(72,2%)与较高的ade相关敏感性(72,2%)相关。结论:发生率、病情和效用测量与不良事件的敏感性有关。ade是经济评价结果的重要结果,需要对其纳入和排除进行更好的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of Delaying Disease Recurrence on Economic Burden in Patients with HER2+ Early-Stage Breast Cancer (eBC). Characteristics and Utilization Patterns of Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Medications. Economic Evaluation of Combined Testing Strategies Using Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein Tests. Budget Impact of Secukinumab in Psoriatic Arthritis Patients with Contraindication to TNF-Alpha Inhibitors. Creating A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool to Enhance Value-Based Purchasing of Generic and Biosimilar Medications in Saudi Arabia: A Pilot Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1