ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2020
The Great I-QALY Disaster.
Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin for the treatment of lupus nephritis in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2024Article
- Rejecting False Claims from Markov Simulations in Alzheimer's Disease.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- After The QALY: Training for a New Start Paradigm in Health Technology Assessment.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- Concerns with Patient Reported Outcome Measurement and Value Claims for Therapy Response: The Case of Mavacamten and Symptomatic Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (SHCM).Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Formulary Submissions: Value Claims, Protocols and Outcomes Based Contracting in Rare Disease.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Evidentiary Standards for Patient-Centered Core Impact (PC-CIS) Value Claims.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Facilitating bias in cost-effectiveness analysis: CHEERS 2022 and the creation of assumption-driven imaginary value claims in health technology assessment.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Nothing to Cheer About: Endorsing Imaginary Economic Evaluations and Value Claims with CHEERS 22.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Rasch Measurement and Patient Reported Value Claims: A Primer for Hemophilia.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Mapping Impossible Utilities: The ICER Report on Tezepelumab for Severe Asthma.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Optimal age- and sex-based management of the queue to ventilators during the Covid-19 crisis.Journal of mathematical economics · 2021Article
- Supping with the Devil: Belief and the Imaginary World of Multiple Myeloma Therapies Invented by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- A Critical Examination of Simulation Pricing and Access Recommendations for Atopic Dermatitis.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- Abandoning Eugenics and the QALY.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- Peter Rabbit is a Badger in Disguise: Deconstructing the Belief System of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review in Health Technology Assessment.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- Fundamental Outcome Measurement: Selecting Patient Reported Outcome Instruments and Interpreting the Data they Produce.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- Fundamental Measurement: The Need Fulfilment Quality of Life (N-QOL) Measure.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- Medicaid Formulary Decisions and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review: Abandoning Pseudoscience in Imaginary Pharmaceutical Pricing Claims.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- Let a Thousand Models Bloom: ICER Analytics Opens the Floodgates to Cloud Pseudoscience.Innovations in pharmacy · 2021Article
- To Dream the Impossible Dream: The Commitment by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review to Rewrite the Axioms of Fundamental Measurement for Hemophilia A and Bladder Cancer Value Claims.Innovations in pharmacy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The QALY is an impossible construct; it defies common sense. It fails completely once we consider the axioms of fundamental measurement. Utilities as ordinal scales cannot be used to create QALYS. The QALY should never have been introduced to support the value assessment of pharmaceutical products and devices. The result is 30 years of QALY based assessments of pharmaceutical products and devices which are conceptually and technically wrong. They are a charade and will have contributed mistakenly to thousands of formulary decisions. In the search for a common metric to evaluate cost-effectiveness the impossibility of a QALY was overlooked. The result is a disaster, unfolding over decades. Our next steps must be to abandon the QALY paradigm and look ahead to a new value assessment framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.