Department of Health Data and Assessment, Survey Data Science and Assessment Division, French National Cancer Institute (Institut National du Cancer INCa), 52 Avenue André Morizet, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Department of Economic and Public Health Evaluation, French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS), 5 Avenue du Stade de France, 93218, Saint-Denis La Plaine CEDEX, France.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020 Aug;18(4):491-508. doi: 10.1007/s40258-020-00562-z.
Oncology is among the most active therapeutic fields in terms of new drug development projects, with increasingly expensive drugs. The expected clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of these treatments in clinical practice have yet to be fully confirmed. Health medico-administrative databases may be useful for assessing the value of anticancer drugs with real-world data.
The objectives of our systematic literature review (SLR) were to analyse economic evaluations of anticancer drugs based on health medico-administrative databases, to assess the quality of these evaluations, and to identify the inputs from such databases that can be used in economic evaluations of anticancer drugs.
We performed an SLR by using PubMed and Web of Science articles published from January 2008 to January 2019. The search strategy focused on anticancer drug cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs)/cost-utility analyses (CUAs) that were entirely based on medico-administrative databases. The review reported the main choices of economic evaluation methods in the analyses. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and risk of bias assessment checklists.
Of the 306 records identified in PubMed, 12 articles were selected, and one additional article was identified through Web of Science. Ten of the 13 articles were CEAs and three were CUAs. Most of the analyses were carried out in North America (n = 11). The economic metric used was the cost per life-year gained (n = 10) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 3). Reporting of the target analysis population and strategies in the articles was in agreement with the CHEERS guidelines. The structural assumptions underpinning the economic models displayed the poorest reporting quality among the items analysed. Representativeness bias (n = 11) and the issue of censored medical costs (n = 8) were the most frequently analysed risks.
A comparison of the economic results was not relevant due to the high heterogeneity of the selected studies. Our SLR highlighted the benefits and pitfalls related to the use of medico-administrative databases in the economic evaluations of anticancer drugs.
肿瘤学是新药开发项目中最活跃的治疗领域之一,涉及越来越昂贵的药物。这些治疗方法在临床实践中的预期临床获益和成本效益尚未得到充分证实。健康医疗管理数据库可用于使用真实世界数据评估抗癌药物的价值。
本系统文献综述(SLR)的目的是分析基于健康医疗管理数据库的抗癌药物的经济评估,评估这些评估的质量,并确定可用于抗癌药物经济评估的此类数据库输入。
我们使用 PubMed 和 Web of Science 数据库中 2008 年 1 月至 2019 年 1 月发表的文章进行了 SLR。搜索策略侧重于完全基于医疗管理数据库的抗癌药物成本效益分析(CEA)/成本效用分析(CUA)。该综述报告了分析中经济评估方法的主要选择。使用统一的健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)和偏倚风险评估检查表评估文章的质量。
在 PubMed 中确定的 306 条记录中,有 12 篇文章被选中,通过 Web of Science 又确定了 1 篇文章。13 篇文章中有 10 篇是 CEA,3 篇是 CUA。大多数分析都在北美进行(n=11)。使用的经济指标是每获得 1 个生命年的成本(n=10)或每获得 1 个质量调整生命年的成本(n=3)。文章中目标分析人群和策略的报告与 CHEERS 指南一致。经济模型所依据的结构假设在分析项目中报告质量最差。代表性偏差(n=11)和截尾医疗成本问题(n=8)是分析最多的风险。
由于所选研究的高度异质性,无法对经济结果进行比较。我们的 SLR 强调了在抗癌药物的经济评估中使用医疗管理数据库的好处和陷阱。