Yoon Na Ri, Na Young Jin, Lee Jong Hwan, Song Inmyung, Lee Eui-Kyung, Park Mi-Hai
School of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seobu-ro, Jangan-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
College of Nursing and Health, Kongju National University, 56 Gongjudaehak-ro, Gongju, Republic of Korea.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2024 Mar 4;150(3):113. doi: 10.1007/s00432-023-05587-0.
This study aims to estimate changes in the value of oncology drugs over time from initial data of the reimbursement decisions to subsequent publications in Korea, using two value frameworks.
We retrieved primary publications assessed for reimbursement between 2007 and July 2021 from the decision documents of Health Insurance Review and Assessment and subsequent publications made available following reimbursement decision from ClinicalTrials.Gov and PubMed databases. Changes in the clinical benefit scores were assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). A paired t test was performed to test whether there was a difference in the scores between primary and subsequent publications.
Of 73 anticancer product/indication pairs, 45 (61.6%) had subsequent publications, of which 62.5% were released within 1 year of reimbursement decision. The mean ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF Net Health Benefit scores increased from primary to subsequent publications, although the differences were not significant. The mean ASCO-VF bonus score significantly increased from 15.91 to 19.09 (p = 0.05). The ESMO-MCBS and bonus scores increased by 0.25 and 0.21, respectively, and the bonus score had a greater impact on the ESMO-MCBS score than the preliminary score did.
The value of drugs demonstrated in subsequent publications varies considerably among oncology drugs, depending on uncertainty associated with the initial evidence and the availability of updated evidence. As decision-making in the face of uncertainty becomes more prevalent, the value frameworks can serve as simple screening tools for re-evaluation in these cases.
本研究旨在使用两个价值框架,估计从韩国报销决策的初始数据到后续出版物中肿瘤药物价值随时间的变化。
我们从健康保险审查与评估的决策文件中检索了2007年至2021年7月间评估报销的主要出版物,以及报销决策后从ClinicalTrials.Gov和PubMed数据库中获取的后续出版物。使用美国临床肿瘤学会价值框架(ASCO-VF)和欧洲医学肿瘤学会临床获益程度量表(ESMO-MCBS)评估临床获益评分的变化。进行配对t检验以检验主要出版物和后续出版物之间的评分是否存在差异。
在73个抗癌产品/适应症对中,45个(61.6%)有后续出版物,其中62.5%在报销决策后1年内发布。从主要出版物到后续出版物,ESMO-MCBS和ASCO-VF净健康获益评分的平均值有所增加,尽管差异不显著。ASCO-VF奖励评分的平均值从15.91显著增加到19.09(p = 0.05)。ESMO-MCBS和奖励评分分别增加了0.25和0.21,奖励评分对ESMO-MCBS评分的影响大于初步评分。
后续出版物中显示的药物价值在肿瘤药物之间差异很大,这取决于与初始证据相关的不确定性和更新证据的可用性。随着面对不确定性的决策变得更加普遍,价值框架可以作为这些情况下重新评估的简单筛选工具。