Determinants of Cost-Effectiveness results of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: a systematic methodological assessment.

J Clin Epidemiol

Institut de Recerca Sant Pau (IR SANT PAU), Sant Quintí 77-79, 08041, Barcelona, Spain; Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, 08025 Barcelona, Spain; CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBERESP), Spain.

Published: December 2024

Objective: to assess the associations between cost-effectiveness analysis' (CEA) methodological characteristics and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) outcomes and conclusions, in biological treatments for asthma.

Study Design And Setting: We included CEAs comparing biological treatments to standard care, in adults with severe asthma. We performed a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (Sep 2022). We extracted and summarised CEA's characteristics and critically appraised the studies using the extended Consensus Health Economic Criteria (e-CHEC). In those reporting benefits as quality-adjusted life years (QALY), we conducted bivariate and regression analyses.

Results: We identified 33 CEAs that showed overall good quality (above 66.6% of compliance) with variable results across e-CHEC sections. We included 28 cost-utility analysis (CUA) on biological treatments in asthma in our analysis. Only industry sponsorship showed significant differences in the bivariate analysis (p=0.021 for the difference in ICER medians, and p=0.027 for the different percentage in reported cost-effectiveness). In the regression adopting a non-lifetime horizon and non-use of a model (β = 4.25 and β = 0.16, p<0.05), significantly associated in the multivariate ananlysis. Only non industry sponsorship showed a significant association with the drug being reported as not cost-effective, both in the bivariate and multivariate analysis (OR = 13.2, and OR = 20.15 p<0.05).

Conclusion: Our study identified significant limitations, including poor reporting practices and the impact of industry sponsorship on outcomes, with notable effects on cost-effectiveness conclusions.These findings highlight the need for policymakers and healthcare decision-makers to meticulously consider methodological rigour and potential biases in economic evaluations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111621DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

biological treatments
12
severe asthma
8
determinants cost-effectiveness
4
biological
4
cost-effectiveness biological
4
biological therapies
4
therapies severe
4
asthma systematic
4
systematic methodological
4
methodological assessment
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!