Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33604870›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2021

Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of a Gene Therapy for RPE65-Mediated Inherited Retinal Disease: The Value of Vision.

Simone A Huygens, Matthijs M Versteegh, Stefan Vegter, L Jan Schouten, Tim A Kanters

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of economic evaluations forInternational journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Simone A HuygensInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. huygens@imta.eur.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0669-4149
Matthijs M VersteeghInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Stefan VegterNovartis Pharma B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L Jan SchoutenCanisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tim A KantersInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC · NLNovartis (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence of gene therapies challenge health economists to evaluate interventions that are often provided to a small patient population with a specific gene mutation in a single dose with high upfront costs and uncertain long-term benefits. The objective of this study was to illustrate the methodological challenges of evaluating gene therapies and their implications by discussing four economic evaluations of voretigene neparvovec (VN) for the treatment of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease. The checklist for economic evaluations of gene therapies of Drummond et al. was applied to the economic evaluations of VN performed by US Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, two country adaptations of the company model in the UK and the Netherlands, and another US publication. The main differences in methodological choices and their impact on cost-effectiveness results were assessed and further explored with sensitivity analyses using the Dutch model. To enable comparison between the economic evaluations, costs were converted to US dollars. Different methodological choices were made in the economic evaluations of VN resulting in large differences in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varying from US$79,618 to US$643,813 per QALY. The chosen duration of treatment effect, source of utility values, discount rate and model structure had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness. This study underlines the findings from Drummond et al. that standard methods can be used to evaluate gene therapies. However, given uncertainty about (particularly long-term) outcomes of gene therapies, guidance is required on the acceptable extrapolation of treatment effect of gene therapies and on how to handle the uncertainty around this extrapolation in scenario and sensitivity analyses to aid health technology assessment research and align submissions of future gene therapies.

Indexed as

Genetic TherapyRetinal DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNetherlandsTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID33604870
PMCPMC8009797
OpenAlexW3132028469

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.