• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一种预测创新药物预算影响的新方法:肿瘤药物验证研究。

A novel method for predicting the budget impact of innovative medicines: validation study for oncolytics.

机构信息

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

National Health Care Institute, Eekholt 4, 1112 XH, Diemen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Aug;21(6):845-853. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01176-x. Epub 2020 Apr 4.

DOI:10.1007/s10198-020-01176-x
PMID:32248313
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7366590/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

High budget impact (BI) estimates of new drugs have led to decision-making challenges potentially resulting in restrictions in patient access. However, current BI predictions are rather inaccurate and short term. We therefore developed a new approach for BI prediction. Here, we describe the validation of our BI prediction approach using oncology drugs as a case study.

METHODS

We used Dutch population-level data to estimate BI where BI is defined as list price multiplied by volume. We included drugs in the antineoplastic agents ATC category which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) considered a New Active Substance and received EMA marketing authorization (MA) between 2000 and 2017. A mixed-effects model was used for prediction and included tumor site, orphan, first in class or conditional approval designation as covariates. Data from 2000 to 2012 were the training set. BI was predicted monthly from 0 to 45 months after MA. Cross-validation was performed using a rolling forecasting origin with e^|Ln(observed BI/predicted BI)| as outcome.

RESULTS

The training set and validation set included 25 and 44 products, respectively. Mean error, composed of all validation outcomes, was 2.94 (median 1.57). Errors are higher with less available data and at more future predictions. Highest errors occur without any prior data. From 10 months onward, error remains constant.

CONCLUSIONS

The validation shows that the method can relatively accurately predict BI. For payers or policymakers, this approach can yield a valuable addition to current BI predictions due to its ease of use, independence of indications and ability to update predictions to the most recent data.

摘要

背景

新药物的高预算影响(BI)估计导致了决策挑战,可能导致患者获得药物的机会受限。然而,目前的 BI 预测准确性和时效性都较差。因此,我们开发了一种新的 BI 预测方法。本文通过肿瘤药物的案例研究来验证 BI 预测方法。

方法

我们使用荷兰人群水平数据来估计 BI,BI 定义为标价乘以销量。我们纳入了欧洲药品管理局(EMA)认为是新活性物质且在 2000 年至 2017 年期间获得 EMA 上市许可(MA)的抗肿瘤药物 ATC 类别中的药物。采用混合效应模型进行预测,并将肿瘤部位、孤儿药、同类首创药物或有条件批准的指定作为协变量。2000 年至 2012 年的数据作为训练集。MA 后 0 至 45 个月内每月预测 BI。采用滚动预测原点,以观测 BI/预测 BI 的对数的绝对值(|Ln(observed BI/predicted BI)|)作为交叉验证的结果。

结果

训练集和验证集分别包括 25 个和 44 个产品。由所有验证结果组成的平均误差为 2.94(中位数为 1.57)。可用数据越少,预测的未来时间越长,误差越大。在没有任何先前数据的情况下,误差最大。从 10 个月开始,误差保持稳定。

结论

验证表明该方法可以相对准确地预测 BI。对于支付方或政策制定者而言,由于该方法易于使用、不依赖于适应证以及能够根据最新数据更新预测,因此该方法可作为当前 BI 预测的有益补充。

相似文献

1
A novel method for predicting the budget impact of innovative medicines: validation study for oncolytics.一种预测创新药物预算影响的新方法:肿瘤药物验证研究。
Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Aug;21(6):845-853. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01176-x. Epub 2020 Apr 4.
2
Affordability of oncology drugs: accuracy of budget impact estimations.肿瘤药物的可负担性:预算影响估计的准确性。
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019 Nov 30;8(1):1697558. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2019.1697558. eCollection 2020.
3
Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010 - 2020.估算欧洲孤儿药的预算影响:2010-2020 年。
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011 Sep 27;6:62. doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-6-62.
4
Review and comparison of clinical evidence submitted to support European Medicines Agency market authorization of orphan-designated oncological treatments.对提交给欧洲药品管理局以支持孤儿指定肿瘤治疗药物上市许可的临床证据进行审查和比较。
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015 Oct 28;10:139. doi: 10.1186/s13023-015-0349-z.
5
Accuracy of budget impact estimations and impact on patient access: a hepatitis C case study.预算影响估计的准确性及其对患者可及性的影响:丙型肝炎案例研究。
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Aug;20(6):857-867. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01048-z. Epub 2019 Apr 5.
6
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
7
Assessment of Coverage in England of Cancer Drugs Qualifying for US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval.英格兰对有资格获得美国食品和药物管理局加速批准的癌症药物的覆盖范围评估。
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Apr 1;181(4):490-498. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8441.
8
Approval of Cancer Drugs With Uncertain Therapeutic Value: A Comparison of Regulatory Decisions in Europe and the United States.具有不确定治疗价值的癌症药物的批准:欧洲和美国的监管决策比较。
Milbank Q. 2020 Dec;98(4):1219-1256. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12476. Epub 2020 Oct 6.
9
Time to Entry for New Cancer Medicines: From European Union-Wide Marketing Authorization to Patient Access in Belgium, Estonia, Scotland, and Sweden.新癌症药物的准入时间:从欧盟范围内的营销授权到比利时、爱沙尼亚、苏格兰和瑞典的患者可及性。
Value Health. 2018 Jul;21(7):809-821. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.003. Epub 2018 Mar 21.
10
Budget impact of everolimus for the treatment of progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional neuroendocrine tumors of gastrointestinal or lung origin that are advanced or metastatic.依维莫司治疗晚期或转移性、进展性、高分化、非功能性胃肠道或肺源性神经内分泌肿瘤的预算影响。
J Med Econ. 2017 Apr;20(4):395-404. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1273228. Epub 2017 Jan 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review.罕见病药物预算影响分析的方法学质量评估:一项系统评价
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Apr 21;12:630949. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.630949. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
Estimated Versus Observed Expenditure Associated with Medicines Recommended by the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group.与全威尔士药品战略小组推荐药品相关的预计支出与实际支出对比
Pharmacoecon Open. 2019 Sep;3(3):343-350. doi: 10.1007/s41669-019-0116-5.
2
Approaches to manage 'affordability' of high budget impact medicines in key EU countries.欧盟主要国家管理高预算影响药品“可负担性”的方法。
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2018 Jun 8;6(1):1478539. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2018.1478539. eCollection 2018.
3
American Society of Clinical Oncology Position Statement on Addressing the Affordability of Cancer Drugs.
美国临床肿瘤学会关于解决抗癌药物可及性的立场声明。
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Mar;14(3):187-192. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2017.027359. Epub 2017 Nov 1.
4
Systematic bias in predictions of new drugs' budget impact: analysis of a sample of recent US drug launches.新药预算影响预测中的系统偏差:对近期美国新药上市样本的分析
Curr Med Res Opin. 2018 May;34(5):765-773. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1320276. Epub 2017 May 3.
5
Prioritizing Rare Diseases: Psychological Effects Influencing Medical Decision Making.优先考虑罕见病:影响医疗决策的心理效应
Med Decis Making. 2017 Jul;37(5):567-576. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17691744. Epub 2017 Feb 14.
6
Payers' Views of the Changes Arising through the Possible Adoption of Adaptive Pathways.支付方对可能采用适应性路径所带来变化的看法。
Front Pharmacol. 2016 Sep 28;7:305. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2016.00305. eCollection 2016.
7
Determinants of Change in the Cost-effectiveness Threshold.成本效益阈值变化的决定因素。
Med Decis Making. 2017 Feb;37(2):264-276. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16662242. Epub 2016 Sep 27.
8
Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries.在欧洲国家,用于定价和报销决策的肿瘤药物的相对有效性评估。
Ann Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(9):1768-75. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw233. Epub 2016 Jun 20.
9
Disparities in Absolute Denial of Modern Hepatitis C Therapy by Type of Insurance.按保险类型划分的现代丙型肝炎治疗绝对拒绝率的差异
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;14(7):1035-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.03.040. Epub 2016 Apr 5.
10
Results of the market-oriented reform in the Netherlands: a review.荷兰市场化改革的结果:一项综述
Health Econ Policy Law. 2016 Apr;11(2):161-78. doi: 10.1017/S1744133115000353. Epub 2015 Aug 17.