Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34007565›Full record

ReviewInnovations in pharmacy2019

Immuno-Oncology Medicines: Policy Implications and Economic Considerations.

Georges Adunlin, Stefanie P Ferreri, Jenny Dong, Maisha Kelly Freeman

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Innovations in pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Georges AdunlinSamford University.
Stefanie P FerreriSamford University.
Jenny DongSamford University.
Maisha Kelly FreemanSamford University.
Samford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant progress has taken place in the field of cancer immunotherapy in recent years. Cancer immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, have shown rather dramatic results and are believed to have completely transformed the field of oncology. However, these transformational therapies are more expensive than previous cancer therapies. As more cancer immunotherapy agents are being developed, with some already being marketed, it is important to consider how economic constraints will shape health policy and value assessment related to these agents. A number of strategies have been suggested to alleviate the price burden and the ensuing concerns about the sustainability of publicly funded healthcare systems. Among these strategies, value-based pricing (VBP) for innovative drugs dominates the headlines in the field of oncology. The specifics of how VBP may be implemented in the United States is still unclear. Nonetheless, policy reform and economic considerations will have to be incorporated into the planning of VBP. The objective of this paper is multifold: (i) to identify the factors affecting the impact of cancer immunotherapy on healthcare cost; (ii) to critically appraise current approaches used to assess the value of novel cancer therapies; (iii) to assess the methodological challenges associated with the economic evaluation of cancer immunotherapy. As the health care system in the U.S transitions toward a value-based model, the need for a formal value assessment framework is warranted in cancer immunotherapy.

Indexed as

cancerimmune checkpoint inhibitorsimmunotherapyvalue-based pricing

Identifiers

PMID34007565
PMCPMC8127089
OpenAlexW2968560640

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.