School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
Front Public Health. 2021 Nov 5;9:777199. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.777199. eCollection 2021.
With the increasing disease burden of cancer worldwide, more and more anticancer drugs have been approved in many countries, and the results of budget impact analyses (BIAs) have become important evidence for related reimbursement decisions. We systematically reviewed whether BIAs for anticancer drugs consider the scope of costs rationally and compared the results of different cost scopes to provide suggestions for future analyses and decision-making. Eligible BIAs published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2016 to 2021 were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted 15 terms from the included studies and analyzed how they considered the scope of costs. In addition, a budget impact model was developed for the introduction of geptanolimab to China's National Reimbursement Drug List to enable a comparison of two cost-scope scenarios. A total of 29 studies were included in the systematic review. All 29 studies considered the costs of anticancer drugs, and 25 (86%) also considered condition-related costs, but only 11 (38%) considered subsequent treatment costs. In the comparative study, the predicted budget impacts from 2022 to 2024 were significantly impacted by subsequent treatment costs, with annual differences between the two cost-scope scenarios of $39,546,664, $65,866,161, and $86,577,386, respectively. The scope of costs considered in some existing BIAs for anticancer drugs are not rational. The variations between different cost scopes in terms of budget impact were significant. Thus, BIAs for anticancer drugs should consider a rational scope of costs that adheres to BIA guidelines. Researchers and decision-makers should pay more attention to the scope of costs to achieve better-quality BIAs for anticancer drugs and enhance reimbursement decision-making.
随着全球癌症负担的增加，越来越多的抗癌药物在许多国家获得批准，预算影响分析（BIA）的结果已成为相关报销决策的重要依据。我们系统地回顾了抗癌药物的 BIA 是否合理考虑了成本范围，并比较了不同成本范围的结果，为未来的分析和决策提供建议。根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南，从 2016 年至 2021 年，在 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 中确定了符合条件的 BIA。我们从纳入的研究中提取了 15 个术语，并分析了它们如何考虑成本范围。此外，还为 geptanolimab 在中国国家医保药品目录中的引入建立了一个预算影响模型，以比较两种成本范围情景。系统综述共纳入 29 项研究。所有 29 项研究均考虑了抗癌药物的成本，25 项（86%）研究还考虑了与疾病相关的成本，但只有 11 项（38%）研究考虑了后续治疗成本。在比较研究中，2022 年至 2024 年的预测预算影响受到后续治疗成本的显著影响，两种成本范围情景的年度差异分别为 39,546,664 美元、65,866,161 美元和 86,577,386 美元。一些现有的抗癌药物 BIA 中考虑的成本范围不合理。预算影响的不同成本范围之间存在显著差异。因此，抗癌药物的 BIA 应考虑合理的成本范围，遵循 BIA 指南。研究人员和决策者应更加关注成本范围，以实现高质量的抗癌药物 BIA，并增强报销决策。
