A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines

Zhao, Ye; Feng, Hao; Ji, Qu; X, Luo; Ma, Wenjuan; Tian, Jinhui

doi:10.1080/13696998.2017.1387118

Cited by 36 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a 2016 review of the use of EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe, Rencz and colleagues [12] noted the countries where EQ-5D is recommended in HTA guidelines. Others have taken a much broader approach in their summaries of HTA guidelines and only briefly consider recommendations on MAUIs [13]. Six MAUIs were recommended or cited in guidelines; EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-6D were the most frequently mentioned, with EQ-5D found to be the most dominant measure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Several multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are available from which utilities can be derived for use in cost-utility analysis (CUA). This study provides a review of recommendations from national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies regarding the choice of MAUIs. Methods A list was compiled of HTA agencies that provide or refer to published official pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines for pricing, reimbursement or market access. The guidelines were reviewed for recommendations on the indirect calculation of utilities and categorized as: a preference for a specific MAUI; providing no MAUI preference, but providing examples of suitable MAUIs and/or recommending the use of national value sets; and recommending CUA, but not providing examples of MAUIs. Results Thirty-four PE guidelines were included for review. MAUIs named for use in CUA: EQ-5D (n = 29 guidelines), the SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 10), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). EQ-5D was a preferred MAUI in 15 guidelines. Alongside the EQ-5D, the HUI was a preferred MAUI in one guideline, with DALY disability weights mentioned in another. Fourteen guidelines expressed no preference for a specific MAUI, but provided examples: EQ-5D (n = 14), SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 9), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). Of those that did not specify a particular MAUI, 12 preferred calculating utilities using national preference weights. Conclusions The EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-6D were the three MAUIs most frequently mentioned in guidelines. The most commonly cited MAUI (in 85% of PE guidelines) was EQ-5D, either as a preferred MAUI or as an example of a suitable MAUI for use in CUA in HTA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of the cost-effectiveness studies included in this systematic review retrieved effectiveness estimates from experimental sources, which is in line with most of the pharmacoeconomic recommendations (Heintz et al 2016;Zhao et al 2018). However, findings from RCT may differ from the real-world clinical practice due to the lack of representation of subpopulations, reduced sample sizes and reduced follow-up duration (Stang 2011;Payet et al 2008;Strom et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Most of the pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommend the use of randomized controlled trials (RCT) or meta-analysis of RCTs as the primary source of clinical evidence (Heintz et al 2016;Zhao et al 2018). Data from observational studies are also accepted by several guidelines, highlighting the importance of using real-world outcomes (Alban et al 1997;AMCP 2016;Bastida et al 2010;CADTH 2017;Capri et al 2001;CES 2004;Fukuda 2016;Heintz et al 2016;Infarmed 1998; L€ a€ akkeiden Hintalautakunta 2017; PHARMAC 2015; SMC, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

Ribeiro

Marques

Alves

et al. 2020

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To characterize the effectiveness measures of cost-effectiveness studies (CES) of ophthalmic drugs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Embase until October 2019. Cost-effectiveness studies (CES) evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Sources of effectiveness measures were extracted. Data on study design and study outcomes were extracted from sources of effectiveness measures. The adequacy of the sample size of the clinical studies used as sources of effectiveness measures was assessed. If CES have retrieved effectiveness data from multiple sources, the appropriateness of the method to combine the results was analysed. Results: Forty-five CES were included. Thirty-one (68.9%) retrieved their effectiveness measures from experimental studies, five (11.1%) from observational studies and nine (20%) from other type of data sources. Eight (17.8%) CES used data from a primary outcome of a study as an effectiveness measure, eight (17.8%) used data from secondary outcomes, seven (15.6%) used data from the both primary and secondary outcomes and for 22 (48.9%) it was not possible to identify the outcomes used. From the 23 (51.1%) CES based on a single clinical study, three (6.7%) included data from clinical studies which had an adequate sample size to detect significant differences in the clinical outcomes used as effectiveness measures. From the 17 (37.8%) CES based on multiple clinical studies, only one (2.2%) used and/or reported an adequate method of quantitative synthesis (metaanalysis). Conclusion: A considerable number of CES in ophthalmology were not based on clinical studies with adequate sample sizes and report results from effectiveness measures not assessed as primary outcomes.

show abstract

“…The WTP threshold was suggested to use three times of the Chinese per capita gross domestic product (GDP) ($30,201) in 2019. 10,11 Clinical Data…”

Section: Model Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis</p>

Lang¹,

Dong²

2020

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The EXTREME clinical trial revealed that cetuximab plus chemotherapy improved the overall survival time of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) versus chemotherapy alone. The current study examined the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in HNSCC patients from the perspective of China. Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model was implemented for R/M HNSCC patients. Survival information was derived from the CHANGE-2 trial. The model was designed as a ten-year time horizon, a 3-week cycle, and a 3% discount rate for costs and utilities. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value is less than $30,201/qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) was considered cost-effective in China. We analyzed the uncertainty by performing one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: In the base-case analysis, we found that the ICER of cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone is $172,702/QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis showed that the fluctuations of each variable in its ranges do not cause ICERs to reach acceptable thresholds. Conclusion: The current observations suggested that treatment with cetuximab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective strategy for R/M HNSCC patients in China at a $30,201 willingness to pay threshold.

show abstract

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines

Cited by 36 publications

References 27 publications

Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines

Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

<p>Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About