Dataset Information

A systematic review of economic evaluations of advanced therapy medicinal products.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent a new category of medicinal products with a potential for transformative improvements in health outcomes but at exceptionally high prices. Routine adoption of ATMPs requires robust evidence of their cost-effectiveness.

Methods

A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of ATMPs, including gene therapies, somatic cell therapies and tissue-engineered products, was conducted. Literature was searched using MedLine, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Register, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the grey literature of health technology assessment organisations with search terms relating to ATMPs and economic evaluations. Titles were screened independently by 2 reviewers. Articles deemed to meet the inclusion criteria were screened independently on abstract, and full texts reviewed. Study findings were appraised critically.

Results

4514 articles were identified, of which 23 met the inclusion criteria. There was some evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of: chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy axicabtagene-ciloleucel (Yescarta), embryonic neural stem cells, tumour infiltrating lymphocytes, in vitro expanded myoblast, autologous chondrocyte implantation, ex vivo gene therapy (Strimvelis) and voretigene neparvovec (Luxturna). However, estimates of cost-effectiveness were associated with significant uncertainty and high likelihood of bias, resulting from largely unknown long-term outcomes, a paucity of evidence on health state utilities and extensive modelling assumptions.

Conclusion

There are critical limitations to the economic evidence for ATMPs, most notably in relation to evidence on the durability of treatment effect, and the reliability of opinion-based assumptions necessary when evidence is absent.

SUBMITTER: Lloyd-Williams H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247439 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR), a multidisciplinary program consisting of exercise, risk factor modification and psychosocial intervention, forms an integral part of managing patients after myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, as well as patients with heart failure (HF). This systematic review seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of CR for patients with MI or HF and inform policy makers in Singapore on published cost-effectiveness studies on CR.MethodsElectronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, PEDro, CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2010 for published economic studies. Additional references were identified through searching bibliographies of included studies. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using Drummond's checklist.ResultsA total of 22 articles were selected for review. However five articles were further excluded because they were cost-minimization analyses, whilst one included patients with stroke. Of the final 16 articles, one article addressed both centre-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation, as well as home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation. Therefore, nine studies compared cost-effectiveness between centre-based supervised CR and no CR; three studies examined that between centre- and home based CR; one between inpatient and outpatient CR; and four between home-based CR and no CR. These studies were characterized by differences in the study perspectives, economic study designs and time frames, as well as variability in clinical data and assumptions made on costs. Overall, the studies suggested that: (1) supervised centre-based CR was highly cost-effective and the dominant strategy when compared to no CR; (2) home-based CR was no different from centre-based CR; (3) no difference existed between inpatient and outpatient CR; and (4) home-based programs were generally cost-saving compared to no CR.ConclusionsOverall, all the studies supported the implementation of CR for MI and HF. However, comparison across studies highlighted wide variability of CR program design and delivery. Policy makers need to exercise caution when generalizing these findings to the Singapore context.

Project description:BackgroundKidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a lifesaving but costly treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The objective of this study was to review full economic evaluations comparing KRT modalities specified as hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and kidney transplantation (KT) for patients with ESKD.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature from PubMed, Embase, EconLit (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and CRD Health Technology Assessment Database from inception until 5 January 2020. Full economic evaluations were included if they compared three forms of KRT specified as PD, HD, and KT. The reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsTen studies were identified in the review. The majority of the studies were model-based evaluations and included a cost-utility analysis. Four studies were conducted from a public healthcare perspective, three from a societal perspective, and three from a third-party payer perspective. None of the studies adequately addressed all the applicable items of the CHEERS checklist. The most infrequently reported items were characterizing heterogeneity, target population, and characterizing uncertainty. There is a lack of studies that conduct from a societal perspective and take into account characterizing heterogeneity. All included studies indicate that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, with either a dominant position over HD and PD or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well below the accepted willingness-to-pay threshold. The majority of studies suggest that PD is less costly and offers comparable or better health outcomes than HD.ConclusionsOur systematic review suggests that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, but there is no firm conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of HD and PD. Further economic evaluations can be conducted from a societal perspective and detail the evidence for subsets of patients with different characteristics.