2018年至2022年加拿大非肿瘤药物卫生技术评估报告:对制造商提交材料的方法学批评以及制造商与加拿大药物和卫生技术局(CADTH)分析的比较。

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1007/s41669-024-00511-9
Fatemeh Mirzayeh Fashami, Jean-Eric Tarride, Behnam Sadeghirad, Kimia Hariri, Amirreza Peyrovinasab, Mitchell Levine
{"title":"2018年至2022年加拿大非肿瘤药物卫生技术评估报告:对制造商提交材料的方法学批评以及制造商与加拿大药物和卫生技术局(CADTH)分析的比较。","authors":"Fatemeh Mirzayeh Fashami, Jean-Eric Tarride, Behnam Sadeghirad, Kimia Hariri, Amirreza Peyrovinasab, Mitchell Levine","doi":"10.1007/s41669-024-00511-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Identifying key differences between manufacturers' submitted analysis and economic reanalysis by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is an important step toward understanding reimbursement recommendations. We compared economic values reported in manufacturers' analysis with the CADTH reanalysis and also assessed methodological critiques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers extracted data from the clinical and economic reports in publicly available CADTH reports from 2018 to 2022. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to assess the difference between mean economic values, and the Chi-square test to assess the association between the CADTH critique final recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total submissions, 99.4% included effectiveness critiques, 88.8% included model structure critiques, 69.1% included utility score critiques, and 78.7% included cost critiques. The median incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in the manufacturers' analyses was $138,658/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2.5-fold lower than the CADTH's reanalysis at $380,251/QALY (p < 0.001). The median CADTH reanalysis for 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) was $4,575,102, which was 27% higher than the manufacturers' submitted 3-year BIA (p < 0.001). CADTH requested a price reduction for 95% of all submissions, and the median price reduction request was 63.5%. In 2021 and 2022, the willingness-to-pay threshold identified in CADTH reports remained constant at $50,000 per QALY gained for all medications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was high frequency of CADTH critiques on manufacturers' submissions in all four aspects of economic submissions: effectiveness, cost, utility score and structure. We observed a higher median incremental cost and lower median incremental QALYs in the CADTH reanalysis compared with the manufacturers' submissions. The resulting higher ICUR in the CADTH reanalysis often leads to a recommendation that the manufacturer needs to reduce its price. The 3-year budget impact was higher in the CADTH reanalyses compared with manufacturers' submissions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers' Submissions and a Comparison between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Fatemeh Mirzayeh Fashami, Jean-Eric Tarride, Behnam Sadeghirad, Kimia Hariri, Amirreza Peyrovinasab, Mitchell Levine\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-024-00511-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Identifying key differences between manufacturers' submitted analysis and economic reanalysis by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is an important step toward understanding reimbursement recommendations. We compared economic values reported in manufacturers' analysis with the CADTH reanalysis and also assessed methodological critiques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers extracted data from the clinical and economic reports in publicly available CADTH reports from 2018 to 2022. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to assess the difference between mean economic values, and the Chi-square test to assess the association between the CADTH critique final recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total submissions, 99.4% included effectiveness critiques, 88.8% included model structure critiques, 69.1% included utility score critiques, and 78.7% included cost critiques. The median incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in the manufacturers' analyses was $138,658/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2.5-fold lower than the CADTH's reanalysis at $380,251/QALY (p < 0.001). The median CADTH reanalysis for 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) was $4,575,102, which was 27% higher than the manufacturers' submitted 3-year BIA (p < 0.001). CADTH requested a price reduction for 95% of all submissions, and the median price reduction request was 63.5%. In 2021 and 2022, the willingness-to-pay threshold identified in CADTH reports remained constant at $50,000 per QALY gained for all medications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was high frequency of CADTH critiques on manufacturers' submissions in all four aspects of economic submissions: effectiveness, cost, utility score and structure. We observed a higher median incremental cost and lower median incremental QALYs in the CADTH reanalysis compared with the manufacturers' submissions. The resulting higher ICUR in the CADTH reanalysis often leads to a recommendation that the manufacturer needs to reduce its price. The 3-year budget impact was higher in the CADTH reanalyses compared with manufacturers' submissions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499573/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00511-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00511-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:确定生产商提交的分析报告与加拿大药品和卫生技术局 (CADTH) 重新进行的经济分析之间的主要差异是了解报销建议的重要一步。我们比较了生产商分析报告与 CADTH 重新分析报告中的经济价值,并对方法学方面的批评意见进行了评估:两名审稿人从 2018 年至 2022 年公开的 CADTH 报告中的临床和经济报告中提取了数据。我们使用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验来评估平均经济价值之间的差异,并使用 Chi-square 检验来评估 CADTH 批判最终建议之间的关联:在所有提交的建议中,99.4%包含有效性点评,88.8%包含模型结构点评,69.1%包含效用评分点评,78.7%包含成本点评。制造商分析的增量成本效用比(ICUR)中位数为 138,658 美元/质量调整生命年(QALY),比 CADTH 重新分析的 380,251 美元/QALY 低 2.5 倍(P 结论):CADTH 对制造商提交的经济学研究报告在有效性、成本、效用评分和结构四个方面都提出了高频率的批评。我们观察到,与生产商的申报材料相比,CADTH 重新分析的增量成本中位数更高,增量 QALYs 中位数更低。因此,CADTH 重新分析中较高的 ICUR 通常会导致建议制造商需要降价。与制造商提交的文件相比,CADTH 重新分析中的 3 年预算影响更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers' Submissions and a Comparison between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses.

Introduction: Identifying key differences between manufacturers' submitted analysis and economic reanalysis by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is an important step toward understanding reimbursement recommendations. We compared economic values reported in manufacturers' analysis with the CADTH reanalysis and also assessed methodological critiques.

Methods: Two reviewers extracted data from the clinical and economic reports in publicly available CADTH reports from 2018 to 2022. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to assess the difference between mean economic values, and the Chi-square test to assess the association between the CADTH critique final recommendations.

Results: Of the total submissions, 99.4% included effectiveness critiques, 88.8% included model structure critiques, 69.1% included utility score critiques, and 78.7% included cost critiques. The median incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in the manufacturers' analyses was $138,658/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2.5-fold lower than the CADTH's reanalysis at $380,251/QALY (p < 0.001). The median CADTH reanalysis for 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) was $4,575,102, which was 27% higher than the manufacturers' submitted 3-year BIA (p < 0.001). CADTH requested a price reduction for 95% of all submissions, and the median price reduction request was 63.5%. In 2021 and 2022, the willingness-to-pay threshold identified in CADTH reports remained constant at $50,000 per QALY gained for all medications.

Conclusion: There was high frequency of CADTH critiques on manufacturers' submissions in all four aspects of economic submissions: effectiveness, cost, utility score and structure. We observed a higher median incremental cost and lower median incremental QALYs in the CADTH reanalysis compared with the manufacturers' submissions. The resulting higher ICUR in the CADTH reanalysis often leads to a recommendation that the manufacturer needs to reduce its price. The 3-year budget impact was higher in the CADTH reanalyses compared with manufacturers' submissions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Costs of Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with First-Line Treatment. Digital Versus Paper-Based Consent from the UK NHS Perspective: A Micro-costing Analysis. Correction: Cost-Effectiveness of Dupilumab and Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Singapore. Publisher Correction: Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers' Submissions and a Comparison Between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses. Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians.
×
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