IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v15y2025i1d10.1186_s13561-025-00651-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How was published evidence used in model-based cost - utility analysis for lung cancer?

Author

Listed:
  • Haijing Guan

    (Capital Medical University
    Peking University)

  • Chunping Wang

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

  • Ruowei Xiao

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

  • Ting Zhou

    (China Pharmaceutical University)

  • Wei Li

    (Peking University
    Peking University
    Fudan University
    Fudan University)

  • Yanan Xu

    (Capital Medical University
    Capital Medical University)

  • Hongting Nie

    (Capital Medical University)

  • Zhigang Zhao

    (Capital Medical University)

  • Sheng Han

    (Peking University
    Peking University)

  • Feng Xie

    (McMaster University)

Abstract

Background Model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a widely used method for evaluating the value of innovative medicines for lung cancer. However, comprehensive evidence exploring the sources of input parameters for CUA modeling is lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the sources of clinical efficacy and safety, cost, and health utility parameters in model-based CUAs for advanced lung cancer in the United States (US) and China. Methods We systematically reviewed model-based CUAs of pharmacological treatments for advanced lung cancer published between January 1, 2018 and March 31, 2025 in the US and Chinese setting. We classified the source of each parameter and retrieved the references cited for the parameters to analyze the citation path and level until we identified the original studies. We also compared the disease and region of parameters used in CUAs with those reported in the original studies. Results A total of 235 studies involving 10,005 parameters were included. Nearly half of the parameters (49.9%) were derived from published literature. Meanwhile, 17.7% had unidentifiable sources and 1.3% were based on assumptions. Among parameters cited from published literatures, 90.7% were first-level citations, but only 64.2% of cost parameters met this standard. Additionally, 30.8% of parameters showed discrepancies in disease or region between the CUAs and original studies. Parameter source distributions were similar between Chinese and US models. However, substantial differences were observed between Chinese and US models in the citation levels of cost parameters and the use of non-local utility data. Conclusions This study highlights challenges in parameter citation and the use of data inconsistent with the target disease and region in model-based CUAs. Enhancing transparency requires direct citation of original studies and generation of disease- and region-specific data to support robust economic evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Haijing Guan & Chunping Wang & Ruowei Xiao & Ting Zhou & Wei Li & Yanan Xu & Hongting Nie & Zhigang Zhao & Sheng Han & Feng Xie, 2025. "How was published evidence used in model-based cost - utility analysis for lung cancer?," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00651-6
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-025-00651-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-025-00651-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-025-00651-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00651-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.