IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i11d10.1007_s40273-020-00949-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Critical Appraisal and Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Gao

    (Analysis Group, Inc.)

  • Dominic Muston

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • Matthew Monberg

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • Kimmie McLaurin

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Robert Hettle

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Elizabeth Szamreta

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • Elyse Swallow

    (Analysis Group, Inc.)

  • Su Zhang

    (Analysis Group, Inc.)

  • Iden Kalemaj

    (Analysis Group, Inc.)

  • James Signorovitch

    (Analysis Group, Inc.)

  • R. Brett McQueen

    (University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus)

Abstract

Background Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women in the US. With poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors having shown promising results in ongoing trials, there is interest in better understanding their economic value. Objective This study aimed to review and evaluate the quality of published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and provide recommendations for CEAs in this setting. Methods A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted in June 2019 to identify CEAs of PARP inhibitors in treating advanced ovarian cancer from peer-reviewed journals and conferences. Key information from the identified publications were extracted and reviewed. The quality of full-text studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Recommendations for future CEAs were developed based on the findings from the literature review. Results Eighteen CEAs (five in full texts) met the inclusion criteria. Most adopted a US healthcare or societal perspective. The majority of the studies did not clearly display the economic model structure. No studies reported the validation of model projections based on internal or external data. Surrogate outcomes such as incremental costs per progression-free life-year gained were the most common outcomes reported. The majority of studies drew their conclusions based on surrogate outcomes, even with no theoretical or empirical threshold for cost effectiveness. All five full-text studies included some type of sensitivity or scenario analyses. The key drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were treatment duration, effects, and costs, health utility, and prevalence of BRCA mutations. Conclusion In the existing CEAs for PARP inhibitors, there were uncertainties and challenges leading to variation in quality. We provided recommendations to improve consistency and quality of CEAs in this setting, which will help to better understand the value of PARP inhibitors, improve decision making, and reduce potential misallocation of resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Gao & Dominic Muston & Matthew Monberg & Kimmie McLaurin & Robert Hettle & Elizabeth Szamreta & Elyse Swallow & Su Zhang & Iden Kalemaj & James Signorovitch & R. Brett McQueen, 2020. "A Critical Appraisal and Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Advanced Ovarian Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1201-1218, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00949-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00949-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00949-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-020-00949-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. Joseph Mattingly & Joseph F. Levy & Julia F. Slejko & Nneka C. Onwudiwe & Eleanor M. Perfetto, 2018. "Estimating Drug Costs: How do Manufacturer Net Prices Compare with Other Common US Price References?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1093-1099, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    2. T. Joseph Mattingly & Bryan L. Love & Bilal Khokhar, 2020. "Real World Cost-of-Illness Evidence in Hepatitis C Virus: A systematic review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(9), pages 927-939, September.
    3. Sabine Vogler & Peter Schneider & Nina Zimmermann, 2019. "Evolution of Average European Medicine Prices: Implications for the Methodology of External Price Referencing," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 303-309, September.
    4. Paweł Żelewski & Michał Wojna & Katarzyna Sygit & Elżbieta Cipora & Izabela Gąska & Mateusz Niemiec & Mateusz Kaczmarski & Tomasz Banaś & Beata Karakiewicz & Artur Kotwas & Paulina Zabielska & Olga Pa, 2022. "Comparison of US and EU Prices for Orphan Drugs in the Perspective of the Considered US Orphan Drugs Act Modifications and Discussed Price-Regulation Mechanisms Adjustments in US and European Union," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-17, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00949-9. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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 .

    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.