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 2.1 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":2.1000,"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.

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
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
Dose Escalation Patterns and Associated Costs of Advanced Therapies for Ulcerative Colitis in France and the United Kingdom: A Retrospective Database Analysis. 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. Using QIP-MS to Guide the Timing of MRD Testing in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Budget Impact Analysis From the French Payer Perspective. Budget Impact and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors for Patients With Heart Failure in Thailand. Real World Evaluation of Next-Day Molecular Respiratory Infectious Disease Testing on Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs.
×
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:481959085
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