Jones David A, Smith Joel, Mei Xue W, Hawkins Maria A, Maughan Tim, van den Heuvel Frank, Mee Thomas, Kirkby Karen, Kirkby Norman, Gray Alastair
Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019 Oct 31;20:19-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.10.007. eCollection 2020 Jan.
With high treatment costs and limited capacity, decisions on which adult patients to treat with proton beam therapy (PBT) must be based on the relative value compared to the current standard of care. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are the gold-standard method for doing this. We aimed to appraise the methodology and quality of CUAs in this area.
We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify CUA studies of PBT in adult disease using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLIT, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Web of Science, and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from 1st January 2010 up to 6th June 2018. General characteristics, information relating to modelling approaches, and methodological quality were extracted and synthesized narratively.
Seven PBT CUA studies in adult disease were identified. Without randomised controlled trials to inform the comparative effectiveness of PBT, studies used either results from one-armed studies, or dose-response models derived from radiobiological and epidemiological studies of PBT. Costing methods varied widely. The assessment of model quality highlighted a lack of transparency in the identification of model parameters, and absence of external validation of model outcomes. Furthermore, appropriate assessment of uncertainty was often deficient.
In order to foster credibility, future CUA studies must be more systematic in their approach to evidence synthesis and expansive in their consideration of uncertainties in light of the lack of clinical evidence.
由于质子束治疗(PBT)成本高昂且治疗能力有限,因此在决定哪些成年患者接受PBT治疗时,必须基于与当前标准治疗方法相比的相对价值。成本效用分析(CUA)是实现这一目标的金标准方法。我们旨在评估该领域CUA的方法和质量。
我们对文献进行了系统综述,以确定2010年1月1日至2018年6月6日期间使用MEDLINE、EMBASE、EconLIT、英国国家医疗服务体系经济评估数据库(NHS EED)、科学网以及塔夫茨医学中心成本效益分析登记处对成年疾病进行PBT的CUA研究。提取并以叙述方式综合了一般特征、与建模方法相关的信息以及方法学质量。
确定了7项关于成年疾病的PBT CUA研究。由于缺乏随机对照试验来告知PBT的比较有效性,研究使用了单臂研究的结果,或从PBT的放射生物学和流行病学研究中得出的剂量反应模型。成本计算方法差异很大。对模型质量的评估突出表明,模型参数的确定缺乏透明度,且模型结果未进行外部验证。此外,对不确定性的适当评估往往不足。
为了提高可信度,鉴于缺乏临床证据,未来的CUA研究在证据综合方法上必须更加系统,并在考虑不确定性方面更加全面。