Cargando…

Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is an economic assessment that estimates the financial consequences of adopting a new intervention. BIA is used to make informed reimbursement decisions, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Objectives: We systematically reviewed BIA studies...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luo, Zejun, Ruan, Zhen, Yao, Dongning, Ung, Carolina Oi Lam, Lai, Yunfeng, Hu, Hao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8639520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34869180
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.765999
_version_ 1784609166024769536
author Luo, Zejun
Ruan, Zhen
Yao, Dongning
Ung, Carolina Oi Lam
Lai, Yunfeng
Hu, Hao
author_facet Luo, Zejun
Ruan, Zhen
Yao, Dongning
Ung, Carolina Oi Lam
Lai, Yunfeng
Hu, Hao
author_sort Luo, Zejun
collection PubMed
description Background: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is an economic assessment that estimates the financial consequences of adopting a new intervention. BIA is used to make informed reimbursement decisions, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Objectives: We systematically reviewed BIA studies associated with anti-diabetic drugs and assessed the extent to which international BIA guidelines were followed in these studies. Methods: We conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data knowledge Service platform from database inception to June 30, 2021. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for assessing BIAs. We extracted and compared the study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force to evaluate the guideline compliance of the included BIA. Results: A total of eighteen studies on the BIA for anti-diabetic drugs were identified. More than half studies were from developed countries. Seventeen studies were based on model and one study was based on real-world data. Overall, analysis considered a payer perspective, reported potential budget impacts over 1–5 years. Assumptions were mainly made about target population size, market share uptake of new interventions, and scope of cost. The data used for analysis varied among studies and was rarely justified. Model validation and sensitivity analysis were lacking in the current BIA studies. Rebate analysis was conducted in a few studies to explore the price discount that was required for new interventions to demonstrate cost equivalence to comparators. Conclusion: Existing studies evaluating budget impact for anti-diabetic drugs vary greatly in methodology, some of which showed low compliance to good practice guidelines. In order for the BIA to be useful for assisting in health plan decision-making, it is important for future studies to optimize compliance to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on BIA. Model validation and sensitivity analysis should also be improved in future BIA studies. Continued improvement of BIA using real-world data is necessary to ensure high-quality analyses and to provide reliable results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8639520
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86395202021-12-04 Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review Luo, Zejun Ruan, Zhen Yao, Dongning Ung, Carolina Oi Lam Lai, Yunfeng Hu, Hao Front Public Health Public Health Background: Budget impact analysis (BIA) is an economic assessment that estimates the financial consequences of adopting a new intervention. BIA is used to make informed reimbursement decisions, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Objectives: We systematically reviewed BIA studies associated with anti-diabetic drugs and assessed the extent to which international BIA guidelines were followed in these studies. Methods: We conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data knowledge Service platform from database inception to June 30, 2021. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for assessing BIAs. We extracted and compared the study characteristics outlined by the ISPOR BIA Task Force to evaluate the guideline compliance of the included BIA. Results: A total of eighteen studies on the BIA for anti-diabetic drugs were identified. More than half studies were from developed countries. Seventeen studies were based on model and one study was based on real-world data. Overall, analysis considered a payer perspective, reported potential budget impacts over 1–5 years. Assumptions were mainly made about target population size, market share uptake of new interventions, and scope of cost. The data used for analysis varied among studies and was rarely justified. Model validation and sensitivity analysis were lacking in the current BIA studies. Rebate analysis was conducted in a few studies to explore the price discount that was required for new interventions to demonstrate cost equivalence to comparators. Conclusion: Existing studies evaluating budget impact for anti-diabetic drugs vary greatly in methodology, some of which showed low compliance to good practice guidelines. In order for the BIA to be useful for assisting in health plan decision-making, it is important for future studies to optimize compliance to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on BIA. Model validation and sensitivity analysis should also be improved in future BIA studies. Continued improvement of BIA using real-world data is necessary to ensure high-quality analyses and to provide reliable results. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8639520/ /pubmed/34869180 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.765999 Text en Copyright © 2021 Luo, Ruan, Yao, Ung, Lai and Hu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Public Health
Luo, Zejun
Ruan, Zhen
Yao, Dongning
Ung, Carolina Oi Lam
Lai, Yunfeng
Hu, Hao
Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review
title Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review
title_full Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review
title_fullStr Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review
title_full_unstemmed Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review
title_short Budget Impact Analysis of Diabetes Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review
title_sort budget impact analysis of diabetes drugs: a systematic literature review
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8639520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34869180
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.765999
work_keys_str_mv AT luozejun budgetimpactanalysisofdiabetesdrugsasystematicliteraturereview
AT ruanzhen budgetimpactanalysisofdiabetesdrugsasystematicliteraturereview
AT yaodongning budgetimpactanalysisofdiabetesdrugsasystematicliteraturereview
AT ungcarolinaoilam budgetimpactanalysisofdiabetesdrugsasystematicliteraturereview
AT laiyunfeng budgetimpactanalysisofdiabetesdrugsasystematicliteraturereview
AT huhao budgetimpactanalysisofdiabetesdrugsasystematicliteraturereview