Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32248313›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2020

A novel method for predicting the budget impact of innovative medicines: validation study for oncolytics.

Joost W Geenen, Svetlana V Belitser, Rick A Vreman, Martijn van Bloois, Olaf H Klungel, Cornelis Boersma, Anke M Hövels

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joost W GeenenDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6206-2520
Svetlana V BelitserDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rick A VremanDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Martijn van BlooisBrabers, Hogeweg 16, 2585 JD, Gouda, The Netherlands.
Olaf H KlungelDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. o.h.klungel@uu.nl.
Cornelis BoersmaHealth-Ecore, 1e Hogeweg 196, 3701 HL, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Anke M HövelsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh budget impact (BI) estimates of new drugs have led to decision-making challenges potentially resulting in restrictions in patient access. However, current BI predictions are rather inaccurate and short term. We therefore developed a new approach for BI prediction. Here, we describe the validation of our BI prediction approach using oncology drugs as a case study.

methodsWe used Dutch population-level data to estimate BI where BI is defined as list price multiplied by volume. We included drugs in the antineoplastic agents ATC category which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) considered a New Active Substance and received EMA marketing authorization (MA) between 2000 and 2017. A mixed-effects model was used for prediction and included tumor site, orphan, first in class or conditional approval designation as covariates. Data from 2000 to 2012 were the training set. BI was predicted monthly from 0 to 45 months after MA. Cross-validation was performed using a rolling forecasting origin with e^|Ln(observed BI/predicted BI)| as outcome.

resultsThe training set and validation set included 25 and 44 products, respectively. Mean error, composed of all validation outcomes, was 2.94 (median 1.57). Errors are higher with less available data and at more future predictions. Highest errors occur without any prior data. From 10 months onward, error remains constant.

conclusionsThe validation shows that the method can relatively accurately predict BI. For payers or policymakers, this approach can yield a valuable addition to current BI predictions due to its ease of use, independence of indications and ability to update predictions to the most recent data.

Indexed as

BudgetsAntineoplastic AgentsDrug ApprovalHumansModels, EconomicNetherlandsReproducibility of ResultsAntineoplastic AgentsBudget impactBudget impact estimationMedicinesOncologyPrediction modelingValidation study

Identifiers

PMID32248313
PMCPMC7366590
OpenAlexW3014418928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.