Raymakers Adam J N, Rand Leah Z, Feldman William B, Kesselheim Aaron S
Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
J Cancer Policy. 2025 Mar;43:100562. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100562. Epub 2025 Jan 31.
Health care payers often use cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as the measure of benefit, to inform reimbursement decisions for new therapies. The QALY combines quantity of life and health-related quality of life into a single outcome measure and enables comparisons across diseases. Critics in the United States have attempted to ban the use of CEAs using QALYs based on the argument that these analyses identify subgroups of vulnerable patient populations for whom drugs are less cost-effective, thereby limiting access.
We used the Tufts CEA Registry to identify QALY-based CEAs of cancer drugs conducted in the US from 1991 to 2023. We extracted the year of publication, cancer type, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (including component incremental costs and QALYs), whether a subgroup analysis was performed, characteristics of that subgroup analysis, and how the subgroup affected cost-effectiveness.
The final cohort included 322 full-text studies; 249 (77.3 %) analyzed treatments for solid tumors and the remainder treatments for blood cancers. Pembrolizumab was the most common therapy studied across all indications (10.2 %). Overall, 31 studies (9.6 %) included some form of subgroup analysis, all of which were age-related. Eleven (35.5 %) of the CEAs with age-related subgroup analyses were conducted following a pivotal clinical trial with the same subgroups.
QALY-based CEAs do not often include subgroups based on age, disease severity, chronic disease, or disability. In rare cases when these analyses are conducted, they are often motivated by clinically meaningful subgroup analyses performed in trials and not by payer budgetary considerations. Therefore, these results show concern about subgroup analyses does not justify efforts to exclude payers from using QALYs in CEA.
Concerns over CEAs identifying subgroups in their analyses do not appear to be justified and does not warrant precluding the use of QALYs for decision-making or price negotiation for drugs.
医疗保健支付方通常会使用以质量调整生命年(QALY)作为效益衡量指标的成本效益分析(CEA),为新疗法的报销决策提供依据。QALY将生命数量与健康相关生活质量结合为一个单一的结果衡量指标,并能够对不同疾病进行比较。美国的批评者试图禁止使用基于QALY的CEA,理由是这些分析会识别出药物成本效益较低的弱势患者亚组,从而限制了药物的可及性。
我们利用塔夫茨成本效益分析注册库,识别1991年至2023年在美国进行的基于QALY的癌症药物CEA。我们提取了发表年份、癌症类型、增量成本效益比(包括组成部分的增量成本和QALY)、是否进行了亚组分析、该亚组分析的特征,以及该亚组如何影响成本效益。
最终队列包括322项全文研究;249项(77.3%)分析了实体瘤的治疗方法,其余分析了血液癌症的治疗方法。帕博利珠单抗是所有适应症中研究最多的疗法(10.2%)。总体而言,31项研究(9.6%)包括某种形式的亚组分析,所有这些分析均与年龄相关。在与年龄相关的亚组分析的CEA中,有11项(35.5%)是在针对相同亚组的关键临床试验之后进行的。
基于QALY的CEA通常不包括基于年龄、疾病严重程度、慢性病或残疾的亚组。在极少数情况下进行这些分析时,其动机通常是试验中具有临床意义的亚组分析,而非支付方的预算考虑。因此,这些结果表明,对亚组分析的担忧并不能成为阻止支付方在CEA中使用QALY的理由。
对CEA在分析中识别亚组的担忧似乎没有道理,也不保证排除在药物决策或价格谈判中使用QALY。