Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30076583›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2019

International HTA Experience with Targeted Therapy Approvals for Lung Cancer.

Fatma Maraiki, J Byrnes, H Tuffaha, M Hinder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Fatma MaraikiSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. f_Maraiki@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6875-1095
J ByrnesSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
H TuffahaSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
M HinderMSc International Pharmacoeconomics and Health Economics at Hochschule Fresenius, Idstein, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the listing success rates and time incurred to listing of recently approved lung cancer medications across Australia, Canada and England.

methodsA comparison between the three countries was performed with respect to the listing status, time incurred for listing and differences in recommendations made for cost effectiveness. Major uncertainties and limitations that compromise health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations were identified.

resultsThe listing success rate was found to be low across all three countries (33% Canada, 17% England and 8% Australia). Across the HTA agencies' reviews, comparators were either dissimilar or altered for effectiveness and/or economic analysis. Overall, limited evidence was found for all indications, and uncertainties were identified due to indirect analyses (70%) and survival extrapolation (100%). Although most of the indications were concluded to be not cost effective, some were subsequently listed (47%) at a reduced price and/or with a specific access programme.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated a low listing success rate for novel lung therapies internationally within different HTA jurisdictions. Major uncertainties that are resistant to available solutions seem to be common across different countries; thus, international solutions would be beneficial.

Identifiers

PMID30076583
PMCPMC6393283

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.