Determinants of Cost-Effectiveness results of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: a systematic methodological assessment
to assess the associations between cost-effectiveness analysis' (CEA) methodological characteristics and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) outcomes and conclusions, in biological treatments for asthma. We included CEAs comparing biological treatments to standard care, in adults with s...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2024-12, p.111621 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 111621 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | |
| creator | Torre-Pérez, Laura de la Santero, Marilina Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy Giesen, Christine Nardin, Angela Cosma, Claudia Pires, Pedro Silva Guida, Andrea Simonini, Marcello Lazo, Camila Quirland Xie, Feng Alonso-Coello, Pablo |
| description | to assess the associations between cost-effectiveness analysis' (CEA) methodological characteristics and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) outcomes and conclusions, in biological treatments for asthma.
We included CEAs comparing biological treatments to standard care, in adults with severe asthma. We performed a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (Sep 2022). We extracted and summarised CEA's characteristics and critically appraised the studies using the extended Consensus Health Economic Criteria (e-CHEC). In those reporting benefits as quality-adjusted life years (QALY), we conducted bivariate and regression analyses.
We identified 33 CEAs that showed overall good quality (above 66.6% of compliance) with variable results across e-CHEC sections. We included 28 cost-utility analysis (CUA) on biological treatments in asthma in our analysis. Only industry sponsorship showed significant differences in the bivariate analysis (p=0.021 for the difference in ICER medians, and p=0.027 for the different percentage in reported cost-effectiveness). In the regression adopting a non-lifetime horizon and non-use of a model (β = 4.25 and β = 0.16, p |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>pubmed</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_39638078</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>39638078</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-pubmed_primary_396380783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFjskKwkAQRAdB3H9B-gcCiUETvbniXe_Sxh4zksmE6U5A8OMVXK6e6lCvHtVSvShN0mA6n0Rd1We-hWGUhMm0o7rxfBanYZL21GNDQt6aEkthcBrWjiXYak2ZmIZKYgZPXBfvdmVc4a4mwwKOOXmsDDFo5-FADXmCJUtucQEIfGchi2IysCS5u_yGyPyyWiplqNoaC6bRJwdqvNse1_ugqs-WLqfKG4v-fvrejf8CT0JnTdI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Determinants of Cost-Effectiveness results of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: a systematic methodological assessment</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Torre-Pérez, Laura de la ; Santero, Marilina ; Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy ; Giesen, Christine ; Nardin, Angela ; Cosma, Claudia ; Pires, Pedro Silva ; Guida, Andrea ; Simonini, Marcello ; Lazo, Camila Quirland ; Xie, Feng ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creator><creatorcontrib>Torre-Pérez, Laura de la ; Santero, Marilina ; Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy ; Giesen, Christine ; Nardin, Angela ; Cosma, Claudia ; Pires, Pedro Silva ; Guida, Andrea ; Simonini, Marcello ; Lazo, Camila Quirland ; Xie, Feng ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><description>to assess the associations between cost-effectiveness analysis' (CEA) methodological characteristics and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) outcomes and conclusions, in biological treatments for asthma.
We included CEAs comparing biological treatments to standard care, in adults with severe asthma. We performed a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (Sep 2022). We extracted and summarised CEA's characteristics and critically appraised the studies using the extended Consensus Health Economic Criteria (e-CHEC). In those reporting benefits as quality-adjusted life years (QALY), we conducted bivariate and regression analyses.
We identified 33 CEAs that showed overall good quality (above 66.6% of compliance) with variable results across e-CHEC sections. We included 28 cost-utility analysis (CUA) on biological treatments in asthma in our analysis. Only industry sponsorship showed significant differences in the bivariate analysis (p=0.021 for the difference in ICER medians, and p=0.027 for the different percentage in reported cost-effectiveness). In the regression adopting a non-lifetime horizon and non-use of a model (β = 4.25 and β = 0.16, p<0.05), significantly associated in the multivariate ananlysis. Only non industry sponsorship showed a significant association with the drug being reported as not cost-effective, both in the bivariate and multivariate analysis (OR = 13.2, and OR = 20.15 p<0.05).
Our study identified significant limitations, including poor reporting practices and the impact of industry sponsorship on outcomes, with notable effects on cost-effectiveness conclusions.These findings highlight the need for policymakers and healthcare decision-makers to meticulously consider methodological rigour and potential biases in economic evaluations.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39638078</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024-12, p.111621</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39638078$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Torre-Pérez, Laura de la</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santero, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giesen, Christine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nardin, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cosma, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pires, Pedro Silva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guida, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simonini, Marcello</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazo, Camila Quirland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><title>Determinants of Cost-Effectiveness results of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: a systematic methodological assessment</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>to assess the associations between cost-effectiveness analysis' (CEA) methodological characteristics and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) outcomes and conclusions, in biological treatments for asthma.
We included CEAs comparing biological treatments to standard care, in adults with severe asthma. We performed a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (Sep 2022). We extracted and summarised CEA's characteristics and critically appraised the studies using the extended Consensus Health Economic Criteria (e-CHEC). In those reporting benefits as quality-adjusted life years (QALY), we conducted bivariate and regression analyses.
We identified 33 CEAs that showed overall good quality (above 66.6% of compliance) with variable results across e-CHEC sections. We included 28 cost-utility analysis (CUA) on biological treatments in asthma in our analysis. Only industry sponsorship showed significant differences in the bivariate analysis (p=0.021 for the difference in ICER medians, and p=0.027 for the different percentage in reported cost-effectiveness). In the regression adopting a non-lifetime horizon and non-use of a model (β = 4.25 and β = 0.16, p<0.05), significantly associated in the multivariate ananlysis. Only non industry sponsorship showed a significant association with the drug being reported as not cost-effective, both in the bivariate and multivariate analysis (OR = 13.2, and OR = 20.15 p<0.05).
Our study identified significant limitations, including poor reporting practices and the impact of industry sponsorship on outcomes, with notable effects on cost-effectiveness conclusions.These findings highlight the need for policymakers and healthcare decision-makers to meticulously consider methodological rigour and potential biases in economic evaluations.</description><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFjskKwkAQRAdB3H9B-gcCiUETvbniXe_Sxh4zksmE6U5A8OMVXK6e6lCvHtVSvShN0mA6n0Rd1We-hWGUhMm0o7rxfBanYZL21GNDQt6aEkthcBrWjiXYak2ZmIZKYgZPXBfvdmVc4a4mwwKOOXmsDDFo5-FADXmCJUtucQEIfGchi2IysCS5u_yGyPyyWiplqNoaC6bRJwdqvNse1_ugqs-WLqfKG4v-fvrejf8CT0JnTdI</recordid><startdate>20241203</startdate><enddate>20241203</enddate><creator>Torre-Pérez, Laura de la</creator><creator>Santero, Marilina</creator><creator>Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy</creator><creator>Giesen, Christine</creator><creator>Nardin, Angela</creator><creator>Cosma, Claudia</creator><creator>Pires, Pedro Silva</creator><creator>Guida, Andrea</creator><creator>Simonini, Marcello</creator><creator>Lazo, Camila Quirland</creator><creator>Xie, Feng</creator><creator>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creator><scope>NPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241203</creationdate><title>Determinants of Cost-Effectiveness results of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: a systematic methodological assessment</title><author>Torre-Pérez, Laura de la ; Santero, Marilina ; Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy ; Giesen, Christine ; Nardin, Angela ; Cosma, Claudia ; Pires, Pedro Silva ; Guida, Andrea ; Simonini, Marcello ; Lazo, Camila Quirland ; Xie, Feng ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-pubmed_primary_396380783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Torre-Pérez, Laura de la</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santero, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giesen, Christine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nardin, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cosma, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pires, Pedro Silva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guida, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simonini, Marcello</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazo, Camila Quirland</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Torre-Pérez, Laura de la</au><au>Santero, Marilina</au><au>Nieto-Gutierrez, Wendy</au><au>Giesen, Christine</au><au>Nardin, Angela</au><au>Cosma, Claudia</au><au>Pires, Pedro Silva</au><au>Guida, Andrea</au><au>Simonini, Marcello</au><au>Lazo, Camila Quirland</au><au>Xie, Feng</au><au>Alonso-Coello, Pablo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Determinants of Cost-Effectiveness results of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: a systematic methodological assessment</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2024-12-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><spage>111621</spage><pages>111621-</pages><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>to assess the associations between cost-effectiveness analysis' (CEA) methodological characteristics and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) outcomes and conclusions, in biological treatments for asthma.
We included CEAs comparing biological treatments to standard care, in adults with severe asthma. We performed a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (Sep 2022). We extracted and summarised CEA's characteristics and critically appraised the studies using the extended Consensus Health Economic Criteria (e-CHEC). In those reporting benefits as quality-adjusted life years (QALY), we conducted bivariate and regression analyses.
We identified 33 CEAs that showed overall good quality (above 66.6% of compliance) with variable results across e-CHEC sections. We included 28 cost-utility analysis (CUA) on biological treatments in asthma in our analysis. Only industry sponsorship showed significant differences in the bivariate analysis (p=0.021 for the difference in ICER medians, and p=0.027 for the different percentage in reported cost-effectiveness). In the regression adopting a non-lifetime horizon and non-use of a model (β = 4.25 and β = 0.16, p<0.05), significantly associated in the multivariate ananlysis. Only non industry sponsorship showed a significant association with the drug being reported as not cost-effective, both in the bivariate and multivariate analysis (OR = 13.2, and OR = 20.15 p<0.05).
Our study identified significant limitations, including poor reporting practices and the impact of industry sponsorship on outcomes, with notable effects on cost-effectiveness conclusions.These findings highlight the need for policymakers and healthcare decision-makers to meticulously consider methodological rigour and potential biases in economic evaluations.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>39638078</pmid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | EISSN: 1878-5921 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024-12, p.111621 |
| issn | 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_39638078 |
| source | Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| title | Determinants of Cost-Effectiveness results of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: a systematic methodological assessment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T17%3A44%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Determinants%20of%20Cost-Effectiveness%20results%20of%20Biological%20Therapies%20for%20Severe%20Asthma:%20a%20systematic%20methodological%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Torre-P%C3%A9rez,%20Laura%20de%20la&rft.date=2024-12-03&rft.spage=111621&rft.pages=111621-&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed%3E39638078%3C/pubmed%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/39638078&rfr_iscdi=true |