首页 > 最新文献

PharmacoEconomics最新文献

英文 中文
A Multistate Model Incorporating Relative Survival Extrapolation and Mixed Time Scales for Health Technology Assessment. 结合相对生存期外推法和混合时间尺度的卫生技术评估多州模型。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01457-w
Enoch Yi-Tung Chen, Paul W Dickman, Mark S Clements

Background: Multistate models have been widely applied in health technology assessment. However, extrapolating survival in a multistate model setting presents challenges in terms of precision and bias. In this article, we develop an individual-level continuous-time multistate model that integrates relative survival extrapolation and mixed time scales.

Methods: We illustrate our proposed model using an illness-death model. We model the transition rates using flexible parametric models. We update the hesim package and the microsimulation package in R to simulate event times from models with mixed time scales. This feature allows us to incorporate relative survival extrapolation in a multistate setting. We compare several multistate settings with different parametric models (standard vs. flexible parametric models), and survival frameworks (all-cause vs. relative survival framework) using a previous clinical trial as an illustrative example.

Results: Our proposed approach allows relative survival extrapolation to be carried out in a multistate model. In the example case study, the results agreed better with the observed data than did the commonly applied approach using standard parametric models within an all-cause survival framework.

Conclusions: We introduce a multistate model that uses flexible parametric models and integrates relative survival extrapolation with mixed time scales. It provides an alternative to combine short-term trial data with long-term external data within a multistate model context in health technology assessment.

背景:多州模型已广泛应用于卫生技术评估。然而,在多态模型环境中推断生存率在精度和偏差方面存在挑战。在本文中,我们建立了一个个体水平的连续时间多态模型,该模型整合了相对生存外推和混合时间尺度:方法:我们使用疾病-死亡模型来说明我们提出的模型。我们使用灵活的参数模型对过渡率进行建模。我们更新了 R 中的 hesim 软件包和微观模拟软件包,以模拟混合时间尺度模型的事件时间。这一功能使我们能够在多州设置中纳入相对生存外推法。我们以之前的一项临床试验为例,比较了不同参数模型(标准参数模型与灵活参数模型)和生存框架(全因生存框架与相对生存框架)的多州设置:我们提出的方法允许在多态模型中进行相对存活率外推。在案例研究中,与在全因生存框架内使用标准参数模型的常用方法相比,该方法的结果与观察到的数据更为吻合:我们介绍了一种多状态模型,该模型使用灵活的参数模型,并将相对生存外推法与混合时间尺度相结合。它为在卫生技术评估中将短期试验数据与多态模型背景下的长期外部数据相结合提供了一种替代方法。
{"title":"A Multistate Model Incorporating Relative Survival Extrapolation and Mixed Time Scales for Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"Enoch Yi-Tung Chen, Paul W Dickman, Mark S Clements","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01457-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01457-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multistate models have been widely applied in health technology assessment. However, extrapolating survival in a multistate model setting presents challenges in terms of precision and bias. In this article, we develop an individual-level continuous-time multistate model that integrates relative survival extrapolation and mixed time scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We illustrate our proposed model using an illness-death model. We model the transition rates using flexible parametric models. We update the hesim package and the microsimulation package in R to simulate event times from models with mixed time scales. This feature allows us to incorporate relative survival extrapolation in a multistate setting. We compare several multistate settings with different parametric models (standard vs. flexible parametric models), and survival frameworks (all-cause vs. relative survival framework) using a previous clinical trial as an illustrative example.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our proposed approach allows relative survival extrapolation to be carried out in a multistate model. In the example case study, the results agreed better with the observed data than did the commonly applied approach using standard parametric models within an all-cause survival framework.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We introduce a multistate model that uses flexible parametric models and integrates relative survival extrapolation with mixed time scales. It provides an alternative to combine short-term trial data with long-term external data within a multistate model context in health technology assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142716834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Economic Evaluations of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Treating Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: A Scoping Review. 治疗肠脑互动障碍的非药物干预措施的经济评估:范围综述》。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01455-y
Anton Pak, Madeline O'Grady, Gerald Holtmann, Ayesha Shah, Haitham Tuffaha

Background and objectives: Disorders of gut-brain interaction are highly prevalent and burdensome conditions for both patients and healthcare systems. Given the limited effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in treating disorders of gut-brain interaction, non-pharmacological interventions are increasingly used; however, the value for money of non-pharmacological treatments is uncertain. This is the first review to assess the economic evaluation evidence of non-pharmacological interventions for disorders of gut-brain interaction.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Reporting adhered to ISPOR's good practices for systematic reviews with cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Comprehensive searches were performed on 24 October, 2023, and an updated search was run on 18 May, 2024 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the International HTA database, with two reviewers screening studies in parallel. The novel Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation (CHEQUE) framework was used to assess methodological and reporting quality. Reporting quality was further assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022.

Results: Fifteen studies were included. Most studies examined treatments for irritable bowel syndrome. Cognitive behavioural therapy, dietary interventions and sacral neuromodulation were cost effective. Acupuncture and physiotherapy were not. CHEQUE assessment showed 12 studies met at least 70% of the methodological criteria, and 14 studies achieved 70% or more for reporting quality.

Conclusions: This review highlights gaps in the current evidence base, particularly in the robustness and generalisability of results due to methodological inconsistencies. Future research should incorporate longer follow-ups, comprehensive cost assessments, subgroup analyses, equity considerations and clearer justifications for modelling assumptions.

背景和目的:肠道-大脑相互作用紊乱是一种高发疾病,给患者和医疗系统带来沉重负担。鉴于药物疗法在治疗肠脑交互障碍方面的效果有限,非药物干预措施的使用日益增多;然而,非药物疗法的经济价值尚不确定。这是首次对非药物干预治疗肠脑交互障碍的经济评价证据进行评估的综述:方法:根据《系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews,PRISMA-ScR)指南进行了范围界定综述。报告遵循了 ISPOR 关于成本和成本效益结果系统综述的良好实践。2023 年 10 月 24 日进行了全面检索,2024 年 5 月 18 日在 PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、Scopus 和国际 HTA 数据库中进行了更新检索,由两名审稿人同时筛选研究。采用新颖的卫生经济学质量评估标准(CHEQUE)框架来评估方法和报告质量。报告质量采用《2022 年卫生经济评价合并报告标准》(CHEERS)进行进一步评估:结果:共纳入 15 项研究。大多数研究探讨了肠易激综合征的治疗方法。认知行为疗法、饮食干预和骶神经调节具有成本效益。针灸和物理治疗则不具成本效益。CHEQUE评估显示,12项研究至少达到了70%的方法学标准,14项研究的报告质量达到了70%或以上:本综述强调了当前证据基础的不足,特别是由于方法不一致而导致的结果的稳健性和普遍性方面的不足。未来的研究应包括更长时间的随访、全面的成本评估、亚组分析、公平性考虑以及更清晰的建模假设理由。
{"title":"Economic Evaluations of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Treating Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Anton Pak, Madeline O'Grady, Gerald Holtmann, Ayesha Shah, Haitham Tuffaha","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01455-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01455-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Disorders of gut-brain interaction are highly prevalent and burdensome conditions for both patients and healthcare systems. Given the limited effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in treating disorders of gut-brain interaction, non-pharmacological interventions are increasingly used; however, the value for money of non-pharmacological treatments is uncertain. This is the first review to assess the economic evaluation evidence of non-pharmacological interventions for disorders of gut-brain interaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Reporting adhered to ISPOR's good practices for systematic reviews with cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Comprehensive searches were performed on 24 October, 2023, and an updated search was run on 18 May, 2024 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the International HTA database, with two reviewers screening studies in parallel. The novel Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation (CHEQUE) framework was used to assess methodological and reporting quality. Reporting quality was further assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were included. Most studies examined treatments for irritable bowel syndrome. Cognitive behavioural therapy, dietary interventions and sacral neuromodulation were cost effective. Acupuncture and physiotherapy were not. CHEQUE assessment showed 12 studies met at least 70% of the methodological criteria, and 14 studies achieved 70% or more for reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review highlights gaps in the current evidence base, particularly in the robustness and generalisability of results due to methodological inconsistencies. Future research should incorporate longer follow-ups, comprehensive cost assessments, subgroup analyses, equity considerations and clearer justifications for modelling assumptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142681671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia. 揭示基于模型的经济分析中的不确定性与澳大利亚药品资助建议之间的关联。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z
Qunfei Chen, Martin Hoyle, Varinder Jeet, Yuanyuan Gu, Kompal Sinha, Bonny Parkinson

Objective: Health technology assessment is used extensively by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to inform medicine funding recommendations in Australia. The PBAC often does not recommend medicines due to uncertainties in economic modelling that result in delaying access to medicines for patients. The systematic identification of which uncertainties can be reduced with alternative evidence or the collection of additional data can help inform recommendations. This study aims to characterise different types of uncertainty in economic models and empirically assess their association with the PBAC recommendations.

Methods: A framework was developed to characterise four types of uncertainties: methodological, structural, generalisability and parameter uncertainty. The first two types were further subcategorised into parameterisable and unparameterisable uncertainty. Data on uncertainty and other factors were extracted from PBAC's Public Summary Documents of first submissions for 193 medicine (vaccine)-indication pairs including economic modelling between 2014 and 2021. Logistic regression was used to estimate the average marginal effect of each type of uncertainty on the probability of a positive recommendation.

Results: The PBAC more often raised issues regarding parameter uncertainty (95%) and parameterisable structural uncertainty (83%) than generalisability uncertainty (48%) and unparameterisable methodological uncertainty (56%). The logistic regression results suggested that the PBAC was more likely to recommend a medicine without unparameterisable methodological, generalisability, and parameterisable structural uncertainty by 15.0%, 10.2 %, and 17.6%, respectively. Parameterisable methodological, unparameterisable structural and parameter uncertainty were not significantly associated with the PBAC recommendations.

Conclusions: This study identified the uncertainties that had significant associations with PBAC recommendations based on the first submission. This may help improve model quality and reduce resubmissions in the future, thus improving patients' access to medicines.

目标:在澳大利亚,药品利益咨询委员会(PBAC)广泛使用健康技术评估来为药品资助建议提供依据。由于经济模型的不确定性,PBAC 经常不推荐药品,导致患者延迟获得药品。系统地确定哪些不确定性可以通过替代证据或收集额外数据来减少,有助于为推荐提供依据。本研究旨在描述经济模型中不同类型的不确定性,并对其与 PBAC 建议的关联性进行实证评估:方法:建立了一个框架来描述四种类型的不确定性:方法、结构、通用性和参数不确定性。前两类又分为可参数化和不可参数化的不确定性。有关不确定性和其他因素的数据摘自 PBAC 的公开摘要文件,其中包括 2014 年至 2021 年间 193 种药物(疫苗)-适应症配对的首次申报经济模型。采用逻辑回归法估算了各类不确定性对积极推荐概率的平均边际效应:结果:PBAC 就参数不确定性(95%)和可参数化的结构不确定性(83%)提出的问题多于通用性不确定性(48%)和不可参数化的方法不确定性(56%)。逻辑回归结果表明,在没有不可参数方法学不确定性、通用性不确定性和可参数化结构不确定性的情况下,PBAC 推荐药物的可能性分别为 15.0%、10.2% 和 17.6%。可参数化的方法学不确定性、不可参数化的结构不确定性和参数不确定性与 PBAC 的建议无明显关联:本研究根据首次提交的数据,确定了与 PBAC 建议有显著关联的不确定性。这可能有助于提高模型质量,减少今后的再次提交,从而改善患者的用药情况。
{"title":"Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia.","authors":"Qunfei Chen, Martin Hoyle, Varinder Jeet, Yuanyuan Gu, Kompal Sinha, Bonny Parkinson","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01446-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Health technology assessment is used extensively by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to inform medicine funding recommendations in Australia. The PBAC often does not recommend medicines due to uncertainties in economic modelling that result in delaying access to medicines for patients. The systematic identification of which uncertainties can be reduced with alternative evidence or the collection of additional data can help inform recommendations. This study aims to characterise different types of uncertainty in economic models and empirically assess their association with the PBAC recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A framework was developed to characterise four types of uncertainties: methodological, structural, generalisability and parameter uncertainty. The first two types were further subcategorised into parameterisable and unparameterisable uncertainty. Data on uncertainty and other factors were extracted from PBAC's Public Summary Documents of first submissions for 193 medicine (vaccine)-indication pairs including economic modelling between 2014 and 2021. Logistic regression was used to estimate the average marginal effect of each type of uncertainty on the probability of a positive recommendation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PBAC more often raised issues regarding parameter uncertainty (95%) and parameterisable structural uncertainty (83%) than generalisability uncertainty (48%) and unparameterisable methodological uncertainty (56%). The logistic regression results suggested that the PBAC was more likely to recommend a medicine without unparameterisable methodological, generalisability, and parameterisable structural uncertainty by 15.0%, 10.2 %, and 17.6%, respectively. Parameterisable methodological, unparameterisable structural and parameter uncertainty were not significantly associated with the PBAC recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified the uncertainties that had significant associations with PBAC recommendations based on the first submission. This may help improve model quality and reduce resubmissions in the future, thus improving patients' access to medicines.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142638770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Cost Effectiveness of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the USA. 美国特瑞莫单抗加杜瓦单抗治疗不可切除肝细胞癌的成本效益。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01453-0
Xiaomo Xiong, Jeff Jianfei Guo

Background: Treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is challenging. Clinical trials have shown that Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) offers clinical benefits as a first-line treatment for uHCC, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown in the USA.

Objective: We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE (tremelimumab plus durvalumab) versus sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC in the USA.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE compared to sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC from the US societal perspective. The time horizon was 48 months with 1-month cycles. Seven parametric survival functions replicated survival curves from clinical trials, with the best-fitting model used to calculate survival probabilities. Costs, health utilities, and adverse events were included, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness measure. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of the model.

Results: In the base-case analysis, STRIDE was cost effective compared to sorafenib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,995.51 per QALY gained, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. However, STRIDE was not cost effective compared to durvalumab monotherapy at the same threshold, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $754,408.92 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that STRIDE was more likely to be cost effective than sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy when the willingness-to-pay exceeded $101,000 and $713,000, respectively.

Conclusions: The STRIDE regimen appears to be cost effective compared to sorafenib but not compared to durvalumab for first-line uHCC treatment in the USA. However, durvalumab has not yet been approved for uHCC in the USA. Future research should focus on long-term data and economic evaluations of other recommended biologics.

背景:治疗无法切除的肝细胞癌(uHCC)具有挑战性。临床试验显示,单药曲妥木单抗常规间隔杜瓦单抗(STRIDE)作为uHCC的一线治疗具有临床疗效,但在美国,其成本效益仍不清楚:我们旨在评估STRIDE(曲妥木单抗加杜瓦单抗)与索拉非尼和杜瓦单抗单药作为美国uHCC一线治疗的成本效益:方法:构建了一个分区生存模型,从美国社会角度评估STRIDE与索拉非尼和杜瓦单抗单药作为uHCC一线治疗的成本效益。时间跨度为48个月,周期为1个月。七个参数生存函数复制了临床试验中的生存曲线,并使用最佳拟合模型计算生存概率。成本、健康效用和不良事件均包括在内,质量调整生命年(QALYs)是衡量疗效的主要指标。成本和疗效的贴现率均为 3%。在基础案例分析中,增量成本效益比与每 QALY 收益 150,000 美元的支付意愿阈值进行了比较。为考察模型的不确定性,还进行了确定性和概率敏感性分析:在基础案例分析中,与索拉非尼相比,STRIDE具有成本效益,基于每QALY收益150,000美元的支付意愿阈值,每QALY收益的增量成本效益比为97,995.51美元。然而,在相同阈值下,STRIDE与durvalumab单药治疗相比不具成本效益,每QALY收益的增量成本效益比为754,408.92美元。确定性敏感性分析与基础病例分析一致。概率敏感性分析表明,当支付意愿分别超过101,000美元和713,000美元时,STRIDE比索拉非尼和durvalumab单药治疗更具成本效益:在美国,与索拉非尼相比,STRIDE方案似乎具有成本效益,但与杜瓦单抗相比,STRIDE方案在一线uHCC治疗中并不具有成本效益。然而,美国尚未批准使用杜伐单抗治疗uHCC。未来的研究应侧重于其他推荐生物制剂的长期数据和经济评估。
{"title":"Cost Effectiveness of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the USA.","authors":"Xiaomo Xiong, Jeff Jianfei Guo","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01453-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01453-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is challenging. Clinical trials have shown that Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) offers clinical benefits as a first-line treatment for uHCC, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown in the USA.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE (tremelimumab plus durvalumab) versus sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC in the USA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE compared to sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC from the US societal perspective. The time horizon was 48 months with 1-month cycles. Seven parametric survival functions replicated survival curves from clinical trials, with the best-fitting model used to calculate survival probabilities. Costs, health utilities, and adverse events were included, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness measure. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of the model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base-case analysis, STRIDE was cost effective compared to sorafenib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,995.51 per QALY gained, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. However, STRIDE was not cost effective compared to durvalumab monotherapy at the same threshold, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $754,408.92 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that STRIDE was more likely to be cost effective than sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy when the willingness-to-pay exceeded $101,000 and $713,000, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The STRIDE regimen appears to be cost effective compared to sorafenib but not compared to durvalumab for first-line uHCC treatment in the USA. However, durvalumab has not yet been approved for uHCC in the USA. Future research should focus on long-term data and economic evaluations of other recommended biologics.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142638768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Delaying Oral Anticoagulants: A False Economy? 延迟口服抗凝药:虚假经济?
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-02 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01422-7
Brendan Collins, Gregory Y H Lip
{"title":"Delaying Oral Anticoagulants: A False Economy?","authors":"Brendan Collins, Gregory Y H Lip","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01422-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01422-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1237-1239"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141875587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Rethinking Tuberculosis Morbidity Quantification: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of TB Disability Weights in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses. 重新思考结核病发病率的量化:对成本效益分析中结核病残疾权重的系统性回顾和批判性评估》(A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of TB Disability Weights in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses)。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-07 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x
Ewan M Tomeny, Thomas Hampton, Phuong Bich Tran, Laura Rosu, Mphatso D Phiri, Kathryn A Haigh, Jasper Nidoi, Tom Wingfield, Eve Worrall

Background: The disability-adjusted life year (DALY), a key metric for health resource allocation, encompasses morbidity through disability weights. Widely used in tuberculosis cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs), DALYs play a significant role in informing intervention adopt/reject decisions. This study reviews the values and consistency of disability weights applied in tuberculosis-related CEAs.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review using the Tufts CEA database, updated to July 2023 with searches in Embase, Scopus and PubMed. Eligible studies needed to have included a cost-per-DALY ratio, and additionally either evaluated a tuberculosis (TB) intervention or included tuberculosis-related weights. We considered all tuberculosis health states: with/without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection, TB treatments and treatment side effects. Data were screened and extracted independently by combinations of two authors.

Findings: A total of 105 studies spanning 2002-2023 across 50 countries (mainly low- and middle-income countries) were extracted. Disability weights were sourced primarily from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD; 100/165; 61%), with 17 non-GBD studies additionally referenced, along with primary derivation. Inconsistencies in the utilisation of weights were evident: of the 100 usages of GBD-sourced weights, only in 47 instances (47%) had the weight value been explicitly specified with an appropriate up-to-date reference cited (constituting 28% of all weight usages, 47/165). Sensitivity analyses on weight values had been conducted in 30% of studies (31/105). Twelve studies did not clearly specify weights or their sources; nine further calculated DALYs without morbidity. The review suggests methodological gaps in current approaches for representing important aspects of TB, including TB-HIV coinfection, treatment, drug-resistance, extrapulmonary TB and psychological impacts. We propose a set of best practice recommendations.

Interpretation: There is a need for increased rigour in the application, sensitivity testing and reporting of TB disability weights. Furthermore, there appears a desire among researchers to reflect elements of the tuberculosis experience beyond those allowed for by GBD disability weights.

背景:残疾调整生命年(DALY)是卫生资源分配的一个关键指标,包括发病率和残疾权重。残疾调整生命年被广泛应用于结核病成本效益分析(CEAs)中,在决定是否采用干预措施方面发挥着重要作用。本研究回顾了结核病相关成本效益分析中采用的残疾权重的价值和一致性:我们使用塔夫茨 CEA 数据库进行了系统性回顾,并在 Embase、Scopus 和 PubMed 中进行了检索,数据库更新至 2023 年 7 月。符合条件的研究必须包含每DALY成本比,并对结核病(TB)干预措施进行评估或包含结核病相关权重。我们考虑了所有结核病的健康状态:合并/不合并人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)感染、结核病治疗和治疗副作用。数据由两位作者独立筛选和提取:共提取了 50 个国家(主要是中低收入国家)2002-2023 年间的 105 项研究数据。残疾权重主要来自《全球疾病负担》(GBD;100/165;61%),另外还参考了 17 项非 GBD 研究以及主要推导结果。权重使用的不一致性非常明显:在 100 次使用全球疾病负担(GBD)来源权重中,只有 47 次(47%)明确说明了权重值,并引用了适当的最新参考资料(占所有权重使用的 28%,47/165)。30%的研究(31/105)对权重值进行了敏感性分析。12 项研究未明确说明权重或权重来源;9 项研究进一步计算了无发病率的 DALY。综述表明,目前在表示结核病重要方面(包括结核病-艾滋病毒合并感染、治疗、耐药性、肺外结核病和心理影响)的方法上存在差距。我们提出了一套最佳实践建议:在结核病残疾权重的应用、敏感性测试和报告方面需要更加严格。此外,研究人员似乎希望反映结核病经历中超出 GBD 残疾权重允许范围的因素。
{"title":"Rethinking Tuberculosis Morbidity Quantification: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of TB Disability Weights in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.","authors":"Ewan M Tomeny, Thomas Hampton, Phuong Bich Tran, Laura Rosu, Mphatso D Phiri, Kathryn A Haigh, Jasper Nidoi, Tom Wingfield, Eve Worrall","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01410-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The disability-adjusted life year (DALY), a key metric for health resource allocation, encompasses morbidity through disability weights. Widely used in tuberculosis cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs), DALYs play a significant role in informing intervention adopt/reject decisions. This study reviews the values and consistency of disability weights applied in tuberculosis-related CEAs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review using the Tufts CEA database, updated to July 2023 with searches in Embase, Scopus and PubMed. Eligible studies needed to have included a cost-per-DALY ratio, and additionally either evaluated a tuberculosis (TB) intervention or included tuberculosis-related weights. We considered all tuberculosis health states: with/without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection, TB treatments and treatment side effects. Data were screened and extracted independently by combinations of two authors.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 105 studies spanning 2002-2023 across 50 countries (mainly low- and middle-income countries) were extracted. Disability weights were sourced primarily from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD; 100/165; 61%), with 17 non-GBD studies additionally referenced, along with primary derivation. Inconsistencies in the utilisation of weights were evident: of the 100 usages of GBD-sourced weights, only in 47 instances (47%) had the weight value been explicitly specified with an appropriate up-to-date reference cited (constituting 28% of all weight usages, 47/165). Sensitivity analyses on weight values had been conducted in 30% of studies (31/105). Twelve studies did not clearly specify weights or their sources; nine further calculated DALYs without morbidity. The review suggests methodological gaps in current approaches for representing important aspects of TB, including TB-HIV coinfection, treatment, drug-resistance, extrapulmonary TB and psychological impacts. We propose a set of best practice recommendations.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>There is a need for increased rigour in the application, sensitivity testing and reporting of TB disability weights. Furthermore, there appears a desire among researchers to reflect elements of the tuberculosis experience beyond those allowed for by GBD disability weights.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1209-1236"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499453/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141897963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Considerations Around the Inclusion of Children and Young People's Time in Economic Evaluation: Findings from an International Delphi Study. 将儿童和青少年的时间纳入经济评估的考虑因素:国际德尔菲研究的结果。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-17 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01411-w
Cameron Morgan, Cam Donaldson, Emily Lancsar, Stavros Petrou, Lazaros Andronis

Background: People's time is a finite resource and a valuable input that ought to be considered in economic evaluations taking a broad, societal perspective. Yet, evaluations of interventions focusing on children and young people (CYP) rarely account for the opportunity cost of time in this population. As a key reason for this, health economists have pointed to uncertainty around when it is appropriate to include CYP time-related costs in an economic evaluation and highlighted the lack of clear guidance on the topic.

Methods: With this in mind, we carried out a Delphi study to establish a list of relevant considerations for researchers to utilise whilst making decisions about whether and when to include CYP time in their economic evaluations. Delphi panellists were asked to propose and rate a set of possible considerations and provide additional thoughts on their ratings. Ratings were summarised using descriptive statistics, and text comments were interrogated through thematic analysis.

Findings: A total of 73 panellists across 16 countries completed both rounds of a two-round Delphi study. Panellists' ratings showed that, when thinking about whether to include displaced CYP time in an economic evaluation, it is very important to consider whether: (1) inclusion would be in line with specified perspective(s) (median score: 9), (2) CYP's time may already be accounted for in other parts of the evaluation (median score: 8), (3) the amount of forgone time is substantial, either in absolute or relative terms (median score: 7) and (4) inclusion of CYP's time costs would be of interest to decision-makers (median score: 7). Respondents thought that considerations such as (1) whether inclusion would be of interest to the research community (median score: 6), (2) whether CYP's time displaced by receiving treatment is 'school' or 'play' time (median score: 5), and (3) whether CYP's are old enough for their time to be considered valuable (median score: 5) are moderately important. A range of views was offered to support beliefs and ratings, many of which were underpinned by compelling normative questions.

背景:人的时间是一种有限的资源,也是一种宝贵的投入,在经济评估中应该从广泛的社会角度加以考虑。然而,针对儿童和青少年(CYP)干预措施的评估却很少考虑该群体的时间机会成本。造成这种情况的一个主要原因是,卫生经济学家指出,在经济评估中何时适合纳入与儿童和青少年时间相关的成本存在不确定性,并强调在此问题上缺乏明确的指导:有鉴于此,我们开展了一项德尔菲研究,以制定一份相关考虑因素清单,供研究人员在决定是否以及何时将幼儿时间纳入经济评估时参考。德尔菲小组成员被要求提出一系列可能的考虑因素并对其进行评分,并就其评分提供补充意见。使用描述性统计对评分进行总结,并通过主题分析对文本评论进行分析:共有来自 16 个国家的 73 位专家组成员完成了两轮德尔菲研究。专家组成员的评分表明,在考虑是否将流离失所的 CYP 时间纳入经济评价时,考虑以下因素非常重要:(1) 纳入是否符合特定观点(中位数分数:9),(2) CYP 时间是否符合特定观点(中位数分数:10),(3) CYP 时间是否符合特定观点(中位数分数:10):9 分),(2) 评估的其他部分可能已经考虑到了青年 人的时间(中位数:8 分),(3) 无论从绝对值还是从相对值来看,所损失的时间都很可观 (中位数:7 分),(4) 决策者会对列入青年一代的时间成本感兴趣(中位数:7 分)。受访者认为,(1)研究界是否会对纳入时间成本感兴趣(中位数:6 分),(2)青少 年因接受治疗而占用的时间是 "上学 "时间还是 "玩耍 "时间(中位数:5 分),(3)青少 年的年龄是否足以将其时间视为有价值的时间(中位数:5 分)等因素的重要性适中。我们提出了一系列观点来支持我们的看法和评分,其中许多观点都是以令人信服的规 范性问题为基础的。
{"title":"Considerations Around the Inclusion of Children and Young People's Time in Economic Evaluation: Findings from an International Delphi Study.","authors":"Cameron Morgan, Cam Donaldson, Emily Lancsar, Stavros Petrou, Lazaros Andronis","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01411-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01411-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People's time is a finite resource and a valuable input that ought to be considered in economic evaluations taking a broad, societal perspective. Yet, evaluations of interventions focusing on children and young people (CYP) rarely account for the opportunity cost of time in this population. As a key reason for this, health economists have pointed to uncertainty around when it is appropriate to include CYP time-related costs in an economic evaluation and highlighted the lack of clear guidance on the topic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>With this in mind, we carried out a Delphi study to establish a list of relevant considerations for researchers to utilise whilst making decisions about whether and when to include CYP time in their economic evaluations. Delphi panellists were asked to propose and rate a set of possible considerations and provide additional thoughts on their ratings. Ratings were summarised using descriptive statistics, and text comments were interrogated through thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 73 panellists across 16 countries completed both rounds of a two-round Delphi study. Panellists' ratings showed that, when thinking about whether to include displaced CYP time in an economic evaluation, it is very important to consider whether: (1) inclusion would be in line with specified perspective(s) (median score: 9), (2) CYP's time may already be accounted for in other parts of the evaluation (median score: 8), (3) the amount of forgone time is substantial, either in absolute or relative terms (median score: 7) and (4) inclusion of CYP's time costs would be of interest to decision-makers (median score: 7). Respondents thought that considerations such as (1) whether inclusion would be of interest to the research community (median score: 6), (2) whether CYP's time displaced by receiving treatment is 'school' or 'play' time (median score: 5), and (3) whether CYP's are old enough for their time to be considered valuable (median score: 5) are moderately important. A range of views was offered to support beliefs and ratings, many of which were underpinned by compelling normative questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1267-1277"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499441/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141996244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 唤醒你的亡灵:向澳大利亚药品福利咨询委员会提交的健康技术评估报告中的成本最小化方法回顾》(Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee)。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-24 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01420-9
Zachary Tirrell, Alicia Norman, Martin Hoyle, Sean Lybrand, Bonny Parkinson

Objectives: Published literature has levied criticism against the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach to economic evaluation over the past two decades, with multiple papers declaring its 'death'. However, since introducing the requirements for economic evaluations as part of health technology (HTA) decision-making in 1992, the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach has been widely used to inform recommendations about the public subsidy of medicines in Australia. This research aimed to highlight the breadth of use of CMA in Australia and assess the influence of preconditions for the approach on subsidy recommendations METHODS: Relevant information was extracted from Public Summary Documents of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) meetings in Australia considering submissions for the subsidy of medicines that included a CMA and were assessed between July 2005 and December 2022. A generalised linear model was used to explore the relationship between whether medicines were recommended and variables that reflected the primary preconditions for using CMA set out in the published PBAC Methodology Guidelines. Other control variables were selected through the Bolasso Method. Subgroup analysis was undertaken which replicated this modelling process.

Results: While the potential for inferior safety or efficacy reduced the likelihood of recommendation (p < 0.01), the effect sizes suggest that the requirements for CMA were not requisite for recommendation.

Conclusion: The Australian practice of CMA does not strictly align with the PBAC Methodology Guidelines and the theoretically appropriate application of CMA. However, within the confines of a deliberative HTA decision-making process that balances values and judgement with available evidence, this may be considered acceptable, particularly if stakeholders consider the current approach delivers sufficient clarity of process and enables patients to access medicines at an affordable cost.

目的:在过去的二十年中,已发表的文献对经济评估中的成本最小化分析(CMA)方法提出了批评,多篇论文宣布其 "死亡"。然而,自 1992 年将经济评估要求作为卫生技术(HTA)决策的一部分引入以来,成本最小化分析(CMA)方法已被广泛用于为澳大利亚的药品公共补贴建议提供信息。本研究旨在强调成本最小化分析法在澳大利亚的广泛应用,并评估该方法的前提条件对补贴建议的影响 方法:从澳大利亚药品利益咨询委员会(PBAC)会议的公共摘要文件中提取相关信息,这些会议审议了 2005 年 7 月至 2022 年 12 月期间提交的包含成本最小化分析法的药品补贴申请。采用广义线性模型来探讨是否推荐药品与反映已发布的《PBAC 方法指南》中规定的使用 CMA 的主要前提条件的变量之间的关系。其他控制变量是通过博拉索法选出的。在复制这一建模过程的基础上进行了分组分析:结果:虽然安全性或疗效较差的可能性降低了推荐的可能性(p 结论:澳大利亚的 CMA 实践并没有降低推荐的可能性:澳大利亚的 CMA 实践并不严格符合 PBAC 方法指南以及理论上 CMA 的适当应用。不过,在兼顾价值观、判断力与现有证据的 HTA 决策过程中,这种做法是可以接受的,尤其是如果利益相关者认为目前的方法能够提供足够清晰的过程,并使患者能够以可承受的成本获得药品。
{"title":"Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.","authors":"Zachary Tirrell, Alicia Norman, Martin Hoyle, Sean Lybrand, Bonny Parkinson","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01420-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01420-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Published literature has levied criticism against the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach to economic evaluation over the past two decades, with multiple papers declaring its 'death'. However, since introducing the requirements for economic evaluations as part of health technology (HTA) decision-making in 1992, the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach has been widely used to inform recommendations about the public subsidy of medicines in Australia. This research aimed to highlight the breadth of use of CMA in Australia and assess the influence of preconditions for the approach on subsidy recommendations METHODS: Relevant information was extracted from Public Summary Documents of Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) meetings in Australia considering submissions for the subsidy of medicines that included a CMA and were assessed between July 2005 and December 2022. A generalised linear model was used to explore the relationship between whether medicines were recommended and variables that reflected the primary preconditions for using CMA set out in the published PBAC Methodology Guidelines. Other control variables were selected through the Bolasso Method. Subgroup analysis was undertaken which replicated this modelling process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While the potential for inferior safety or efficacy reduced the likelihood of recommendation (p < 0.01), the effect sizes suggest that the requirements for CMA were not requisite for recommendation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Australian practice of CMA does not strictly align with the PBAC Methodology Guidelines and the theoretically appropriate application of CMA. However, within the confines of a deliberative HTA decision-making process that balances values and judgement with available evidence, this may be considered acceptable, particularly if stakeholders consider the current approach delivers sufficient clarity of process and enables patients to access medicines at an affordable cost.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1287-1300"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499440/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142056247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Empirical Testing of Alternative Search Methods to Retrieve Utility Values for Health Economic Modelling. 为健康经济模型检索效用值的其他搜索方法的经验测试。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-06 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01414-7
Johanna Lister, Suzy Paisley, Christopher Carroll, Paul Tappenden

Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare different information retrieval methods that can be used to identify utility inputs for health economic models.

Methods: The usual practice of using systematic review methods was compared with two alternatives (iterative searching and rapid review), using a health technology assessment (HTA) case study in ulcerative colitis (UC). We analysed whether there were differences in the utility values identified when using the alternative search methods. Success was evaluated in terms of time, burden and relevance of identified information. The identified utility values were tested in an executable health economic model developed for UC, and the model results were compared.

Results: The usual practice of using systematic review search approaches identified the most publications but was also the least precise method and took longest to complete. The inclusion of data from the different search methods in the model did not lead to different conclusions across search methods.

Conclusions: In this case study, usual practice was less efficient and resulted in the same health economic model conclusions as the alternative search methods. Further case studies are required to examine whether this conclusion might be generalisable.

研究目的本研究旨在比较可用于确定卫生经济模型效用输入的不同信息检索方法:方法:通过对溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的健康技术评估(HTA)案例研究,比较了使用系统综述方法的常规做法和两种替代方法(迭代检索和快速综述)。我们分析了使用替代检索方法所确定的效用值是否存在差异。我们从时间、负担和已识别信息的相关性等方面评估了搜索的成功率。在为 UC 开发的可执行健康经济模型中测试了所确定的效用值,并对模型结果进行了比较:结果:使用系统综述检索方法的通常做法能识别出最多的出版物,但也是最不精确的方法,且耗时最长。将不同检索方法的数据纳入模型并不会导致不同检索方法得出不同的结论:在本案例研究中,常规方法的效率较低,与其他搜索方法得出的健康经济模型结论相同。需要进一步开展案例研究,以考察这一结论是否具有普遍性。
{"title":"Empirical Testing of Alternative Search Methods to Retrieve Utility Values for Health Economic Modelling.","authors":"Johanna Lister, Suzy Paisley, Christopher Carroll, Paul Tappenden","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01414-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01414-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare different information retrieval methods that can be used to identify utility inputs for health economic models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The usual practice of using systematic review methods was compared with two alternatives (iterative searching and rapid review), using a health technology assessment (HTA) case study in ulcerative colitis (UC). We analysed whether there were differences in the utility values identified when using the alternative search methods. Success was evaluated in terms of time, burden and relevance of identified information. The identified utility values were tested in an executable health economic model developed for UC, and the model results were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The usual practice of using systematic review search approaches identified the most publications but was also the least precise method and took longest to complete. The inclusion of data from the different search methods in the model did not lead to different conclusions across search methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this case study, usual practice was less efficient and resulted in the same health economic model conclusions as the alternative search methods. Further case studies are required to examine whether this conclusion might be generalisable.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1255-1266"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141897961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Treatment Effect Waning in Immuno-oncology Health Technology Assessments: A Review of Assumptions and Supporting Evidence with Proposals to Guide Modelling. 免疫肿瘤健康技术评估中的治疗效果减弱:对假设和支持证据的回顾,以及指导建模的建议。
IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-23 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01423-6
Kurt Taylor, Nicholas R Latimer, Thomas Douglas, Anthony J Hatswell, Sophia Ho, Gabriel Okorogheye, John Borril, Clara Chen, Inkyu Kim, David Bertwistle

Treatment effect waning (TEW) refers to the attenuation of treatment effects over time. Assumptions of a sustained immuno-oncologic treatment effect have been a source of contention in health technology assessment (HTA). We review how TEW has been addressed in HTA and in the wider scientific literature. We analysed company submissions to English language HTA agencies and summarised methods and assumptions used. We subsequently reviewed TEW-related work in the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database and conducted a targeted literature review (TLR) for evidence of the maintenance of immuno-oncology (IO) treatment effects post-treatment discontinuation. We found no standardised approach adopted by companies in submissions to HTA agencies, with immediate TEW most used in scenario analyses. Independently fitted survival models do however suggest TEW may often be implicitly modelled. Materials in the ISPOR scientific database suggest gradual TEW is more plausible than immediate TEW. The TLR uncovered evidence of durable survival in patients treated with IOs but no evidence that directly addresses the presence or absence of TEW. Our HTA review shows the need for a consistent and appropriate implementation of TEW in oncology appraisals. However, the TLR highlights the absence of direct evidence on TEW in literature, as TEW is defined in terms of relative treatment effects-not absolute survival. We propose a sequence of steps for analysts to use when assessing whether a TEW scenario is necessary and appropriate to present in appraisals of IOs.

治疗效果减弱(TEW)是指治疗效果随着时间的推移而减弱。在卫生技术评估(HTA)中,关于免疫肿瘤治疗效果持续性的假设一直存在争议。我们回顾了 HTA 和更广泛的科学文献是如何处理 TEW 的。我们分析了公司提交给英语 HTA 机构的资料,并总结了所使用的方法和假设。随后,我们回顾了 ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database 中与 TEW 相关的工作,并进行了有针对性的文献回顾 (TLR),以寻找免疫肿瘤学 (IO) 治疗效果在治疗终止后得以维持的证据。我们发现,在提交给 HTA 机构的文件中,各公司并未采用标准化方法,而在情景分析中使用最多的是即时 TEW。不过,独立拟合的生存模型确实表明,TEW 可能经常被隐含建模。ISPOR 科学数据库中的资料表明,渐进式 TEW 比即时 TEW 更可信。TLR 发现了接受 IOs 治疗的患者的持久生存证据,但没有证据直接说明 TEW 的存在与否。我们的 HTA 审查表明,在肿瘤学评估中需要一致、适当地实施 TEW。然而,TLR 强调文献中缺乏有关 TEW 的直接证据,因为 TEW 是以相对治疗效果而非绝对生存率来定义的。我们提出了一系列步骤,供分析人员在评估是否有必要在国际组织评估中提出 TEW 方案时使用。
{"title":"Treatment Effect Waning in Immuno-oncology Health Technology Assessments: A Review of Assumptions and Supporting Evidence with Proposals to Guide Modelling.","authors":"Kurt Taylor, Nicholas R Latimer, Thomas Douglas, Anthony J Hatswell, Sophia Ho, Gabriel Okorogheye, John Borril, Clara Chen, Inkyu Kim, David Bertwistle","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01423-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-024-01423-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Treatment effect waning (TEW) refers to the attenuation of treatment effects over time. Assumptions of a sustained immuno-oncologic treatment effect have been a source of contention in health technology assessment (HTA). We review how TEW has been addressed in HTA and in the wider scientific literature. We analysed company submissions to English language HTA agencies and summarised methods and assumptions used. We subsequently reviewed TEW-related work in the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database and conducted a targeted literature review (TLR) for evidence of the maintenance of immuno-oncology (IO) treatment effects post-treatment discontinuation. We found no standardised approach adopted by companies in submissions to HTA agencies, with immediate TEW most used in scenario analyses. Independently fitted survival models do however suggest TEW may often be implicitly modelled. Materials in the ISPOR scientific database suggest gradual TEW is more plausible than immediate TEW. The TLR uncovered evidence of durable survival in patients treated with IOs but no evidence that directly addresses the presence or absence of TEW. Our HTA review shows the need for a consistent and appropriate implementation of TEW in oncology appraisals. However, the TLR highlights the absence of direct evidence on TEW in literature, as TEW is defined in terms of relative treatment effects-not absolute survival. We propose a sequence of steps for analysts to use when assessing whether a TEW scenario is necessary and appropriate to present in appraisals of IOs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1181-1196"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499331/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142036603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
PharmacoEconomics
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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