University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
J Med Econ. 2010;13(2):193-202. doi: 10.3111/13696991003757500.
To critically evaluate published cost-effectiveness studies of novel drug products requiring less-frequent medication dosing compared to conventional formulations of the same drug substance.
A search was conducted in the Medline and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies published before May 2009 that compared two or more drug delivery technologies formulated with the same active drug substance. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) grading criteria for cost-effectiveness studies was applied to the selected publications.
The literature search identified approximately 907 articles of which six cost-effectiveness studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies spanned four chronic conditions, were conducted from various international perspectives and used decision-analytic models to project economic outcomes. The base-case results of all six studies indicated that the drug product with sustained therapeutic efficacy was either more effective and less costly ('dominant') or more cost effective than the conventional formulation of the same drug substance. Quality scores ranging from 70 to 84 (scale 0 to 100) were assigned to the studies, with a mean of 78.
This review likely did not capture all relevant drug delivery technologies and drug products. Only one reviewer critically evaluated the cost-effectiveness studies and independently assigned quality scores using the QHES grading criteria, which may be limited in its ability to identify poorly analyzed studies.
Evaluation of the published literature suggests that drug products with less-frequent medication dosing can be cost effective when compared to conventional formulations, but assessments are challenging because of complex relationships among therapeutic drug levels, dosing frequency, medication adherence, and health outcomes. Additional product-specific, comparative, pragmatic studies in this area are needed.
对与同一种药物活性物质的常规制剂相比,需较少频次给药的新型药物产品的已发表成本效益研究进行批判性评估。
在 Medline 和 Embase 数据库中进行了检索,以查找 2009 年 5 月之前发表的比较两种或多种药物传递技术的成本效益研究,这些技术均采用相同的活性药物物质进行了制剂。应用卫生经济学研究质量(QHES)成本效益研究分级标准对入选文献进行评估。
文献检索共确定了约 907 篇文章,其中 6 篇成本效益研究符合纳入标准。这些研究涵盖了 4 种慢性疾病,来自不同的国际视角,并使用决策分析模型来预测经济结果。所有 6 项研究的基础案例结果均表明,具有持续治疗效果的药物产品要么更有效且成本更低(“优势”),要么比同一种药物活性物质的常规制剂更具成本效益。这些研究的质量评分范围为 70 至 84 分(0 至 100 分),平均得分为 78 分。
本次综述可能未涵盖所有相关的药物传递技术和药物产品。仅由一位评审员对成本效益研究进行了批判性评估,并使用 QHES 分级标准独立分配了质量评分,该方法可能在识别分析不佳的研究方面能力有限。
对已发表文献的评估表明,与常规制剂相比,需较少频次给药的药物产品具有成本效益,但评估具有挑战性,因为治疗药物水平、给药频率、用药依从性和健康结果之间存在复杂关系。需要在该领域开展更多特定于产品、具有可比性、实用性的研究。