Immunotherapy with check-point inhibitors (CPI) in adult malignancies: a protocol for the systematic review of the quality of economic analyses

被引:4
作者
Wang, Ying [1 ]
Camateros, Pierre [2 ]
Smith, Denise [3 ]
Dawe, David [4 ]
Ellis, Peter [5 ]
机构
[1] BC Canc Vancouver, 600 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada
[2] Univ British Columbia, Dept Med, Div Community Internal Med, 2775 Laurel St,10th Floor, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[3] CancerCare Manitoba, Dept Med Oncol, 675 McDermot Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0V9, Canada
[4] McMaster Univ, Fac Hlth Sci, Hlth Sci Lib, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
[5] McMaster Univ, Juravinski Canc Ctr, Dept Oncol, 3rd Floor,699 Concess St, Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2, Canada
关键词
Immuno-therapy; Immune-oncology; Check-point inhibitor; Economic analysis; Cost-effectiveness; Cancer; Neoplasm; Quality; Reporting quality; Protocol; CHEERS criteria; COST; NIVOLUMAB; AGENTS;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-019-1047-z
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Immuno-oncology, and in particular, check-point inhibitors (CPIs), have led to a paradigm shift in the field of cancer care. The cost of new drug development is high, and many novel agents in oncology are significantly more expensive than older agents. Therefore, healthcare funders have factored measures of cost-effectiveness into decisions concerning drug reimbursement and incorporation of new agents into treatment algorithms. The methodology of cost-effectiveness evaluations, however, is less rigorously applied than those evaluating clinical efficacy and safety data. Thus, in spite of many regulatory bodies having approved CPIs based on existing economic analyses, to date, there has not been a systematic evaluation of the quality of health economic studies conducted on this new class of agents. Therefore, we propose to systematically review the methodologic and reporting quality of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies assessing CPIs to alternate established therapies, other immuno-oncology regimens, or placebo, in adults with malignancies. Methods/design: The systematic review will include all published economic evaluations of CPIs compared with at least one other treatment in adult patients with solid or hematologic malignancies. A search will be performed to identify relevant studies in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and the NIHR-HTA database. The titles and abstracts of all identified studies will be independently reviewed by two reviewers, who will then assess the full text of all articles deemed to meet eligibility criteria. Assessed articles will be screened for compliance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) criteria. The association, with CHEERS criteria, of the journal impact factor, publication year, funding source, tumor site, trial or model-based study, and CPIs studied, will then be assessed. Discussion: The systematic review will aim to provide an overview of the quality of economic analyses evaluating CPIs for the treatment of malignancies in adult patients. Any systemic or recurrent deficiencies in methodological or reporting quality will be described and used to inform recommendations for improved reporting of economic analyses. Systematic review registration: This review will not be registered with PROSPERO, it does not meet the eligibility criterion of addressing an outcome of the direct patient or clinical relevance.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   Systematic review of the economic evaluations of novel therapeutic agents in multiple myeloma: what is the reporting quality? [J].
Aguiar, P. M. ;
Lima, T. M. ;
Storpirtis, S. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2016, 41 (02) :189-197
[2]  
Al Kadour Ahmad, 2018, Value Health Reg Issues, V16, P46, DOI 10.1016/j.vhri.2018.05.003
[3]   The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review of the characteristics and methodological quality of published literature [J].
Edwards, Katherine ;
Jones, Natasha ;
Newton, Julia ;
Foster, Charlie ;
Judge, Andrew ;
Jackson, Kate ;
Arden, Nigel K. ;
Pinedo-Villanueva, Rafael .
HEALTH ECONOMICS REVIEW, 2017, 7
[4]   Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda [J].
Gafni, A ;
Birch, S .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2006, 62 (09) :2091-2100
[5]   Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)-Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force [J].
Husereau, Don ;
Drummond, Michael ;
Petrou, Stavros ;
Carswell, Chris ;
Moher, David ;
Greenberg, Dan ;
Augustovski, Federico ;
Briggs, Andrew H. ;
Mauskopf, Josephine ;
Loder, Elizabeth .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2013, 16 (02) :231-250
[6]   Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement [J].
Husereau, Don ;
Drummond, Michael ;
Petrou, Stavros ;
Carswell, Chris ;
Moher, David ;
Greenberg, Dan ;
Augustovski, Federico ;
Briggs, Andrew H. ;
Mauskopf, Josephine ;
Loder, Elizabeth .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346
[7]   Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies [J].
Iannazzo, Sergio ;
Iliza, Ange-Christelle ;
Perrault, Louise .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2018, 36 (02) :189-204
[8]   Reporting and Grading Financial Toxicity [J].
Khera, Nandita .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 32 (29) :3337-+
[9]  
Liberati A, 2009, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V339, DOI [10.1136/bmj.b2700, 10.1136/bmj.b2535, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.299, 10.1136/bmj.i4086, 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1]
[10]   A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab versus Docetaxel for Advanced Nonsquamous NSCLC Including PD-L1 Testing [J].
Matter-Walstra, Klazien ;
Schwenkglenks, Matthias ;
Aebi, Stefan ;
Dedes, Konstantin ;
Diebold, Joachim ;
Pietrini, Mario ;
Klingbiel, Dirk ;
von Moos, Roger ;
Gautschi, Oliver .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2016, 11 (11) :1846-1855