Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32794041›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2020

A Critical Appraisal and Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

Wei Gao, Dominic Muston, Matthew Monberg, Kimmie McLaurin, Robert Hettle, Elizabeth Szamreta, Elyse Swallow, Su Zhang, Iden Kalemaj, James Signorovitch and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Wei GaoAnalysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
Dominic MustonMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4876-7940
Matthew MonbergMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Kimmie McLaurinAstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Robert HettleAstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Elizabeth SzamretaMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Elyse SwallowAnalysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
Su ZhangAnalysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
Iden KalemajAnalysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
James SignorovitchAnalysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
R Brett McQueenSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Mail Stop C238, 12850 E. Montview Blvd., Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Robert.mcqueen@cuanschutz.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4302-2678
Analysis Group (United States) · USMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USAstraZeneca (United Kingdom) · GBAstraZeneca (United States) · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOvarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women in the US. With poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors having shown promising results in ongoing trials, there is interest in better understanding their economic value.

objectiveThis study aimed to review and evaluate the quality of published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and provide recommendations for CEAs in this setting.

methodsA systematic literature review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted in June 2019 to identify CEAs of PARP inhibitors in treating advanced ovarian cancer from peer-reviewed journals and conferences. Key information from the identified publications were extracted and reviewed. The quality of full-text studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Recommendations for future CEAs were developed based on the findings from the literature review.

resultsEighteen CEAs (five in full texts) met the inclusion criteria. Most adopted a US healthcare or societal perspective. The majority of the studies did not clearly display the economic model structure. No studies reported the validation of model projections based on internal or external data. Surrogate outcomes such as incremental costs per progression-free life-year gained were the most common outcomes reported. The majority of studies drew their conclusions based on surrogate outcomes, even with no theoretical or empirical threshold for cost effectiveness. All five full-text studies included some type of sensitivity or scenario analyses. The key drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were treatment duration, effects, and costs, health utility, and prevalence of BRCA mutations.

conclusionIn the existing CEAs for PARP inhibitors, there were uncertainties and challenges leading to variation in quality. We provided recommendations to improve consistency and quality of CEAs in this setting, which will help to better understand the value of PARP inhibitors, improve decision making, and reduce potential misallocation of resources.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansModels, EconomicPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID32794041
PMCPMC7547040
OpenAlexW3049582167

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.