Cargando…

Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review

Background: HTA guidance has generally been driven by situations where innovative and usually more expensive technologies are compared to the prevailing standards of care. Cheaper and less efficacious interventions have received scarce attention, although strategies with minimal individual efficacy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Darlington, Meryl, Scarica, Raffaele, Chavez-Pacheco, Xyomara, Blamplain Segar, Laeticia, Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9760952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36545305
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1025326
_version_ 1784852598000451584
author Darlington, Meryl
Scarica, Raffaele
Chavez-Pacheco, Xyomara
Blamplain Segar, Laeticia
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
author_facet Darlington, Meryl
Scarica, Raffaele
Chavez-Pacheco, Xyomara
Blamplain Segar, Laeticia
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
author_sort Darlington, Meryl
collection PubMed
description Background: HTA guidance has generally been driven by situations where innovative and usually more expensive technologies are compared to the prevailing standards of care. Cheaper and less efficacious interventions have received scarce attention, although strategies with minimal individual efficacy losses might produce collective health gains when savings are redistributed. Purpose: This systematic review of health economic evaluations identified interventions that are both cost and outcome reducing to procure a list of candidate decrementally cost-effective technologies. Data Sources: English language searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov covering 2005 to September 2021. Study Selection: Full economic evaluations reporting in English decrementally cost-effective health technologies based on RCT data, modelling or mixed methods. Data Synthesis: After filtering 4,975 studies found through the systematic database search, 107 decrementally cost-effective health technologies (HTs) were identified. Nearly a third were services (n = 29) and similarly for drugs (n = 31). For over half of the studies (n = 54) health outcomes were measured in QALYs and the cost-utility ratios varied from €140 to €5 million saved per QALY lost, albeit with time horizons varying from 4 days of follow-up to lifetime extrapolations. Less than a quarter of the studies were carried out from the societal perspective. Limitations: Despite including ClinicalTrials.gov as data source, unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusions: Our results show a growth in recent years in the number of economic publications demonstrating decrementally cost-effective HTs. Economic tools are needed to facilitate the adoption of such HTs by policy-makers at the national level to maximise health outcomes at the population level. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=95504, identifier CRD42018095504.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9760952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97609522022-12-20 Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review Darlington, Meryl Scarica, Raffaele Chavez-Pacheco, Xyomara Blamplain Segar, Laeticia Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle Front Pharmacol Pharmacology Background: HTA guidance has generally been driven by situations where innovative and usually more expensive technologies are compared to the prevailing standards of care. Cheaper and less efficacious interventions have received scarce attention, although strategies with minimal individual efficacy losses might produce collective health gains when savings are redistributed. Purpose: This systematic review of health economic evaluations identified interventions that are both cost and outcome reducing to procure a list of candidate decrementally cost-effective technologies. Data Sources: English language searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov covering 2005 to September 2021. Study Selection: Full economic evaluations reporting in English decrementally cost-effective health technologies based on RCT data, modelling or mixed methods. Data Synthesis: After filtering 4,975 studies found through the systematic database search, 107 decrementally cost-effective health technologies (HTs) were identified. Nearly a third were services (n = 29) and similarly for drugs (n = 31). For over half of the studies (n = 54) health outcomes were measured in QALYs and the cost-utility ratios varied from €140 to €5 million saved per QALY lost, albeit with time horizons varying from 4 days of follow-up to lifetime extrapolations. Less than a quarter of the studies were carried out from the societal perspective. Limitations: Despite including ClinicalTrials.gov as data source, unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusions: Our results show a growth in recent years in the number of economic publications demonstrating decrementally cost-effective HTs. Economic tools are needed to facilitate the adoption of such HTs by policy-makers at the national level to maximise health outcomes at the population level. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=95504, identifier CRD42018095504. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9760952/ /pubmed/36545305 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1025326 Text en Copyright © 2022 Darlington, Scarica, Chavez-Pacheco, Blamplain Segar and Durand-Zaleski. 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 Pharmacology
Darlington, Meryl
Scarica, Raffaele
Chavez-Pacheco, Xyomara
Blamplain Segar, Laeticia
Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle
Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review
title Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review
title_full Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review
title_fullStr Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review
title_short Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review
title_sort decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: a systematic review
topic Pharmacology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9760952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36545305
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1025326
work_keys_str_mv AT darlingtonmeryl decrementallycosteffectivehealthtechnologiesinnoninferioritystudiesasystematicreview
AT scaricaraffaele decrementallycosteffectivehealthtechnologiesinnoninferioritystudiesasystematicreview
AT chavezpachecoxyomara decrementallycosteffectivehealthtechnologiesinnoninferioritystudiesasystematicreview
AT blamplainsegarlaeticia decrementallycosteffectivehealthtechnologiesinnoninferioritystudiesasystematicreview
AT durandzaleskiisabelle decrementallycosteffectivehealthtechnologiesinnoninferioritystudiesasystematicreview