ReviewmAbs
The cost-effectiveness of biopharmaceuticals: a look at the evidence.
Review in mAbs. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Cancer Prevention, Treatment, and Control: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2016Pooled it
- End-to-end collaboration to transform biopharmaceutical development and manufacturing.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2021Review
- A Novel Proteomic Method Reveals NLS Tagging of T-DM1 Contravenes Classical Nuclear Transport in a Model of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2020Article
- Improving Receptor-Mediated Intracellular Access and Accumulation of Antibody Therapeutics-The Tale of HER2.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Willingness to pay for new medicines: a step towards narrowing the gap between NICE and IQWiG.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Biosimilars: To switch or not to switch - that is the question.Reumatologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Due to the increasing availability and costs of biopharmaceuticals, policymakers are questioning whether they provide good value relative to other health interventions and many are increasingly relying on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to supplement decision-making. Analyzing data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, this study critically reviewed the cost-utility literature for biopharmaceuticals and compared their value to other health interventions. Of 2,383 studies in the registry, biopharmaceutical CUAs comprised the sixth largest category of interventions at 11%. Characteristics of biopharmaceutical articles were similar to other CUAs; however, they displayed slightly better quality. The median cost-effectiveness ratio of biopharmaceuticals was less favorable (i.e., higher) than other interventions though many seem to provide value for money. A logistic regression showed that among biopharmaceuticals the cost-effectiveness of industry-sponsored studies and products that treat infectious diseases were significantly more likely to be favorable (less than the overall median), while cancer and neurological treatments were significantly less likely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.