Wilson Andrew W, Neumann Peter J
Center for the Study of Drug Development; Tufts University School of Medicine; Boston, MA USA.
Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health; Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Tufts Medical Center; Boston, MA USA.
MAbs. 2012 Mar-Apr;4(2):281-8. doi: 10.4161/mabs.4.2.18812. Epub 2012 Mar 1.
Due to the increasing availability and costs of biopharmaceuticals, policymakers are questioning whether they provide good value relative to other health interventions and many are increasingly relying on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to supplement decision-making. Analyzing data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, this study critically reviewed the cost-utility literature for biopharmaceuticals and compared their value to other health interventions. Of 2,383 studies in the registry, biopharmaceutical CUAs comprised the sixth largest category of interventions at 11%. Characteristics of biopharmaceutical articles were similar to other CUAs; however, they displayed slightly better quality. The median cost-effectiveness ratio of biopharmaceuticals was less favorable (i.e., higher) than other interventions though many seem to provide value for money. A logistic regression showed that among biopharmaceuticals the cost-effectiveness of industry-sponsored studies and products that treat infectious diseases were significantly more likely to be favorable (less than the overall median), while cancer and neurological treatments were significantly less likely.
由于生物制药的可及性不断提高且成本不断上升,政策制定者们正在质疑它们相对于其他健康干预措施而言是否具有良好的价值,并且许多人越来越依赖成本效用分析(CUA)来辅助决策。本研究通过分析塔夫茨医疗中心成本效益分析登记处的数据,对生物制药的成本效用文献进行了批判性审查,并将它们的价值与其他健康干预措施进行了比较。在登记处的2383项研究中,生物制药的成本效用分析占干预措施的第六大类,为11%。生物制药文章的特征与其他成本效用分析类似;然而,它们的质量略高。生物制药的中位成本效益比不如其他干预措施有利(即更高),尽管许多生物制药似乎物有所值。逻辑回归显示,在生物制药中,行业资助研究以及治疗传染病的产品的成本效益显著更有可能是有利的(低于总体中位数),而癌症和神经疾病治疗的成本效益显著更不可能如此。