A systematic literature review of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment

Author:

Wang YitongORCID,Qiu Tingting,Nikodem Mateusz,Francois Clément,Toumi Mondher

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This review intends to provide an overview of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment (HTA) among the different agencies. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2020. The studies were eligible for inclusion if they conducted a quantitative analysis of HTA’s previous decisions for cancer drugs. The factors with p-values below the significance level of .05 were considered as the statistically significant factors for HTA decisions. Results A total of nine studies for six agencies in Australia, Belgium, France, South Korea, the UK, and Canada were eligible to be included. From the univariable analysis, improvements in clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were found as significant factors for the agencies in Belgium, South Korea, and Canada. From the multivariable analysis, cost-effectiveness was found as a positive factor for the agencies in the UK, South Korea, and Canada. Few factors related to characteristics of disease and technology were found to be significant among the included agencies. Conclusions Despite the different drug reimbursement systems and the socioeconomic situations, cost-effectiveness and/or improvement on clinical outcomes seemed to be the most important factors for recommendations of cancer drugs among the agencies.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Health Policy

Reference42 articles.

1. 9. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) (2011) pCODR expert review committee deliberative framework [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/The%20pCODR%20Expert%20Review%20Committee%20%28pERC%29/pcodr_perc_deliberative_frame.pdf.

2. Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences;Chabot;Clinicoecon Outcomes Res.,2014

3. Current challenges in health economic modeling of cancer therapies: A research inquiry;Miller;Am Health Drug Benefit.,2014

4. 4. Swedish Institute for Health Economics (2019) Comparator report on cancer in Europe 2019 – Disease burden, costs and access to medicines [cited September 2021]. Available at: https://ihe.se/en/publicering/comparator-report-on-cancer-in-europe-2019/.

5. Regulatory affairs 101: Introduction to expedited regulatory pathways;Cox;Clin Transl Sci.,2020

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3