Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27378386›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2016

BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles.

William C N Dunlop, C Daniel Mullins, Olaf Pirk, Ron Goeree, Maarten J Postma, Ashley Enstone, Louise Heron

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2016. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

William C N DunlopMundipharma International Limited, Cambridge, UK. will.dunlop@mundipharma.co.uk.
C Daniel MullinsUniversity of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Olaf PirkOlaf Pirk Consult, Nuremberg, Germany.
Ron GoereeGoeree Consulting, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Maarten J PostmaUnit of PharmacoEpidemiology and PharmacoEconomics (PE2), Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ashley EnstoneAdelphi Values Limited, Bollington, UK.
Louise HeronAdelphi Values Limited, Bollington, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo provide a framework for addressing payers' criteria during the development of pharmaceuticals.

methodsA conceptual framework was presented to an international health economic expert panel for discussion. A structured literature search (from 2010 to May 2015), using the following databases in Ovid: Medline(®) and Medline(®) In-Process (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), EconLit (EBSCOhost) and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and a 'grey literature' search, were conducted to identify existing criteria from the payer perspective. The criteria assessed by existing frameworks and guidelines were collated; the most commonly reported criteria were considered for inclusion in the framework. A mnemonic was conceived as a memory aide to summarise these criteria.

resultsOverall, 41 publications were identified as potentially relevant to the objective. Following further screening, 26 were excluded upon full-text review on the basis of no framework presented (n = 13), redundancy (n = 11) or abstract only (n = 2). Frameworks that captured criteria developed for or utilised by the pharmaceutical industry (n = 5) and reimbursement guidance (n = 10) were reviewed. The most commonly identified criteria-unmet need/patient burden, safety, efficacy, quality-of-life outcomes, environment, evidence quality, budget impact and comparator-were incorporated into the summary framework. For ease of communication, the following mnemonic was developed: BEACON (Burden/target population, Environment, Affordability/value, Comparator, Outcomes, Number of studies/quality of evidence).

conclusionsThe BEACON framework aims to capture the 'essence' of payer requirements by addressing the most commonly described criteria requested by payers regarding the introduction of a new pharmaceutical.

Indexed as

Drug DesignReimbursement MechanismsAbbreviations as TopicDrug IndustryGuidelines as TopicHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID27378386
PMCPMC5023755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.