• 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

2000年至2020年期间英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所推荐的新药对人群健康的影响:一项回顾性分析

Population-health impact of new drugs recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England during 2000-20: a retrospective analysis.

作者信息

Naci Huseyin, Murphy Peter, Woods Beth, Lomas James, Wei Jinru, Papanicolas Irene

机构信息

Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

出版信息

Lancet. 2025 Jan 4;405(10472):50-60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02352-3. Epub 2024 Dec 12.

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02352-3
PMID:39675371
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health systems experience difficult trade-offs when paying for new drugs. In England, funding recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for new drugs might generate health gains, but inevitably result in forgone health as the funds cannot be used for alternative treatments and services. We aimed to evaluate the population-health impact of NICE recommendations for new drugs during 2000-20.

METHODS

For this retrospective analysis, we identified technology appraisals for new drugs in England published in NICE's publicly available database of appraisals between 2000 and 2020. We excluded products with terminated appraisals, not recommended, or subsequently withdrawn from the market and excluded appraisals in programmes focusing on medical devices, diagnostics, or interventional procedures. We included drugs that underwent NICE appraisal within 5 years of initial regulatory approval. We collected data on drug name, appraised indication, and specific features of both the drug and its appraisal. We noted the value for money offered by new drugs, expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and data on health benefits, expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We estimated the number of patients receiving new drugs recommended by NICE using proprietary data on the total volumes of new drugs sold in England between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2020. We calculated the net health effect of each appraisal using the difference between the incremental QALY gains from implementing the new drug within the National Health Service (NHS) and the estimated QALYs that could hypothetically be obtained by reallocating the same funds to other NHS services or treatments. We obtained forgone QALYs by dividing the incremental cost of the new drug by the health-opportunity cost of NHS expenditure.

FINDINGS

NICE appraised 332 unique pharmaceuticals between 2000 and 2020; 276 (83%) had positive recommendations. Of these 276, 207 (75%) had a NICE appraisal within 5 years of regulatory approval. We included 183 (88%) of 207 drugs in this analysis, after excluding drugs that did not meet eligibility criteria. The median QALY gain across all 339 appraisals was 0·49 (IQR 0·15-1·13), equivalent to an additional half a year in full health. Median ICER for recommending new drugs increased from £21 545 (IQR 14 175-26 173) per QALY gained for 14 appraisals published between 2000 and 2004 to £28 555 (19 556-33 712) for 165 appraisals published between 2015 and 2020 (p=0·014). Median ICER varied by therapeutic area, ranging from £6478 (3526-12 912) for 12 appraisals of anti-infective drugs to £30 000 (22 395-45 870) for 144 appraisals of oncology drugs (p<0·0001). New drugs generated an estimated 3·75 million additional QALYs across 19·82 million patients who received new drugs recommended by NICE. The use of new drugs resulted in an estimated additional cost to the NHS of £75·1 billion. If the resources allocated to new drugs had been spent on existing services in the NHS, an estimated 5·00 million additional QALYs could have been generated during 2000-20. Overall, the cumulative population-health impact of drugs recommended by NICE was negative, with a net loss of approximately 1·25 million QALYs.

INTERPRETATION

During 2000-20, NHS coverage of new drugs displaced more population health than it generated. Our results highlight the inherent trade-offs between individuals who directly benefit from new drugs and those who forgo health due to the reallocation of resources towards new drugs.

FUNDING

The Commonwealth Fund.

摘要

背景

卫生系统在为新药支付费用时面临艰难的权衡。在英国,国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)对新药的资助建议可能会带来健康收益,但不可避免地会导致健康损失,因为这些资金不能用于替代治疗和服务。我们旨在评估2000年至2020年期间NICE对新药的建议对人群健康的影响。

方法

在这项回顾性分析中,我们在NICE公开的评估数据库中确定了2000年至2020年期间英国对新药的技术评估。我们排除了评估终止、未被推荐或随后退出市场的产品,并排除了专注于医疗设备、诊断或介入程序的项目评估。我们纳入了在首次监管批准后5年内接受NICE评估的药物。我们收集了药物名称、评估适应症以及药物及其评估的具体特征的数据。我们记录了新药的性价比,以增量成本效益比(ICER)表示,以及健康效益数据,以质量调整生命年(QALY)表示。我们使用2000年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间英国新药销售总量的专有数据估计接受NICE推荐新药的患者数量。我们通过实施新药在国民保健服务(NHS)中获得的增量QALY增益与假设将相同资金重新分配给其他NHS服务或治疗可获得的估计QALY之间的差异,计算每次评估的净健康影响。我们通过将新药的增量成本除以NHS支出的健康机会成本来获得放弃的QALY。

结果

2000年至2020年期间,NICE评估了332种独特的药品;276种(83%)获得了正面推荐。在这276种药品中,207种(75%)在监管批准后5年内接受了NICE评估。在排除不符合资格标准的药物后,我们在本分析中纳入了207种药物中的183种(88%)。所有339次评估的QALY增益中位数为0.49(IQR 0.15 - 1.13),相当于额外半年的完全健康状态。推荐新药的ICER中位数从2000年至2004年发布的14次评估中每获得一个QALY的21545英镑(IQR 14175 - 26173)增加到2015年至2020年发布的165次评估中的28555英镑(19556 - 33712)(p = 0.014)。ICER中位数因治疗领域而异,从12次抗感染药物评估的6478英镑(3526 - 12912)到144次肿瘤药物评估的30000英镑(22395 - 45870)(p < 0.0001)。新药在接受NICE推荐新药的1982万患者中估计产生了375万个额外的QALY。使用新药估计给NHS带来了751亿英镑的额外成本。如果分配给新药的资源用于NHS的现有服务,在2000年至2020年期间估计可以产生500万个额外的QALY。总体而言,NICE推荐的药物对人群健康的累积影响为负面,净损失约125万个QALY。

解读

在2000年至2020年期间,NHS对新药的覆盖取代的人群健康多于其产生的健康。我们的结果突出了直接从新药中受益的个体与因资源重新分配给新药而放弃健康的个体之间的内在权衡。

资助

英联邦基金会。

相似文献

1
Population-health impact of new drugs recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England during 2000-20: a retrospective analysis.2000年至2020年期间英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所推荐的新药对人群健康的影响:一项回顾性分析
Lancet. 2025 Jan 4;405(10472):50-60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02352-3. Epub 2024 Dec 12.
2
Incremental benefits of novel pharmaceuticals in the UK: a cross-sectional analysis of NICE technology appraisals from 2010 to 2020.英国新型药品的增量效益:2010 年至 2020 年 NICE 技术评估的横断面分析。
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 8;12(4):e058279. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058279.
3
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.
4
Cefiderocol for treating severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections: technology evaluation to inform a novel subscription-style payment model.头孢地尔罗治疗严重需氧革兰氏阴性细菌感染:技术评估以提供一种新的订阅式支付模式。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Jun;28(28):1-238. doi: 10.3310/YGWR4511.
5
Ceftazidime with avibactam for treating severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections: technology evaluation to inform a novel subscription-style payment model.头孢他啶-阿维巴坦治疗严重需氧革兰氏阴性细菌感染:技术评估以支持新型订阅式支付模式。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(73):1-230. doi: 10.3310/YAPL9347.
6
Modelling approaches for histology-independent cancer drugs to inform NICE appraisals: a systematic review and decision-framework.基于组织学的癌症药物建模方法,为 NICE 评估提供信息:系统评价和决策框架。
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Dec;25(76):1-228. doi: 10.3310/hta25760.
7
Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所成本效益阈值的估计方法。
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(14):1-503, v-vi. doi: 10.3310/hta19140.
8
Effects of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's technology appraisals on prescribing and net ingredient costs of drugs in the National Health Service in England.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所的技术评估对英格兰国民医疗服务体系中药物处方及净成分成本的影响。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25(3):262-71. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309990110.
9
Will the reformed Cancer Drugs Fund address the most common types of uncertainty? An analysis of NICE cancer drug appraisals.改革后的癌症药物基金能否解决最常见的不确定性类型?对英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所癌症药物评估的分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 31;18(1):393. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3162-2.
10
Azacitidine for Treating Acute Myeloid Leukaemia with More Than 30 % Bone Marrow Blasts: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal.阿扎胞苷治疗骨髓母细胞超过30%的急性髓系白血病:英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所单一技术评估的证据审查小组观点
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Mar;35(3):363-373. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0453-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Can health inequalities in sickle cell disease be addressed through novel therapies?镰状细胞病中的健康不平等问题能否通过新型疗法得到解决?
Hemasphere. 2025 Jul 10;9(7):e70175. doi: 10.1002/hem3.70175. eCollection 2025 Jul.
2
Funding Health Promotion Activities to Reduce Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Frail Older Adults (HomeHealth): Further Challenges to the "Cost-Effective but Unaffordable" Paradox.资助健康促进活动以减少体弱老年人的可避免住院(家庭健康项目):对“性价比高但负担不起”悖论的进一步挑战
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Jul 9. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00987-4.
3
The UK's Early Access to Medicines Scheme 10 years on: an evaluation using publicly available data.
英国药品早期准入计划实施10年:基于公开数据的评估
JRSM Open. 2025 Feb 24;16(2):20542704251317916. doi: 10.1177/20542704251317916. eCollection 2025 Feb.
4
Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Ophthalmology.眼科诊断与治疗
J Pers Med. 2025 Jan 14;15(1):28. doi: 10.3390/jpm15010028.