Cargando…
Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma
BACKGROUND: Differing methodological requirements and decision-making criteria are recognised as barriers to transferability of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) across jurisdictions. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the generic and specific transferability of published CEAs of systemic treatments for advance...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31761996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00860-y |
_version_ | 1783508214255452160 |
---|---|
author | Gorry, Claire McCullagh, Laura Barry, Michael |
author_facet | Gorry, Claire McCullagh, Laura Barry, Michael |
author_sort | Gorry, Claire |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Differing methodological requirements and decision-making criteria are recognised as barriers to transferability of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) across jurisdictions. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the generic and specific transferability of published CEAs of systemic treatments for advanced melanoma to the Irish setting. METHODS: CEAs of treatments for melanoma were identified by systematic review. Transferability to the Irish setting was assessed using the EUnetHTA transferability tool for Economic Evaluation. We present a narrative discussion comparing the differences in key parameter inputs and the likely impact of these differences on the model outcomes and the reimbursement recommendation. Transferability is considered within the context of the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold, using the net monetary benefit (NMB) framework. RESULTS: No published CEAs (n = 15) aligned with the Irish reference case for CEA. Changes to key parameters were unlikely to change the conclusions of the CEA when the cost-effectiveness threshold was considered. Ten studies (19 pairwise comparisons) were compared with findings by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) using NMB. Without accounting for differences in the cost-effectiveness threshold, there was alignment between the study conclusions and NCPE recommendations in 73.7% cases. When the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold was applied in the estimation of NMB, there was agreement in 89.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Alignment in methodological requirements for CEA is important to facilitate joint health technology assessment (HTA) by regional collaborations in Europe. When parameter inputs are not exactly aligned, conclusions may still be comparable across jurisdictions. For international joint procurement initiatives, determining and implementing joint decision rules may be more important than trying to align rules regarding methodological and parameter inputs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00860-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7081651 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70816512020-03-23 Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma Gorry, Claire McCullagh, Laura Barry, Michael Pharmacoeconomics Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Differing methodological requirements and decision-making criteria are recognised as barriers to transferability of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) across jurisdictions. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the generic and specific transferability of published CEAs of systemic treatments for advanced melanoma to the Irish setting. METHODS: CEAs of treatments for melanoma were identified by systematic review. Transferability to the Irish setting was assessed using the EUnetHTA transferability tool for Economic Evaluation. We present a narrative discussion comparing the differences in key parameter inputs and the likely impact of these differences on the model outcomes and the reimbursement recommendation. Transferability is considered within the context of the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold, using the net monetary benefit (NMB) framework. RESULTS: No published CEAs (n = 15) aligned with the Irish reference case for CEA. Changes to key parameters were unlikely to change the conclusions of the CEA when the cost-effectiveness threshold was considered. Ten studies (19 pairwise comparisons) were compared with findings by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) using NMB. Without accounting for differences in the cost-effectiveness threshold, there was alignment between the study conclusions and NCPE recommendations in 73.7% cases. When the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold was applied in the estimation of NMB, there was agreement in 89.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Alignment in methodological requirements for CEA is important to facilitate joint health technology assessment (HTA) by regional collaborations in Europe. When parameter inputs are not exactly aligned, conclusions may still be comparable across jurisdictions. For international joint procurement initiatives, determining and implementing joint decision rules may be more important than trying to align rules regarding methodological and parameter inputs. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00860-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2019-11-25 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7081651/ /pubmed/31761996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00860-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Gorry, Claire McCullagh, Laura Barry, Michael Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma |
title | Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma |
title_full | Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma |
title_fullStr | Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma |
title_full_unstemmed | Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma |
title_short | Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma |
title_sort | transferability of economic evaluations of treatments for advanced melanoma |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31761996 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00860-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gorryclaire transferabilityofeconomicevaluationsoftreatmentsforadvancedmelanoma AT mccullaghlaura transferabilityofeconomicevaluationsoftreatmentsforadvancedmelanoma AT barrymichael transferabilityofeconomicevaluationsoftreatmentsforadvancedmelanoma |