Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34156648›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2021

Economic Evidence on Potentially Curative Gene Therapy Products: A Systematic Literature Review.

Joseph Khoa Ho, Kennedy Borle, Nick Dragojlovic, Manrubby Dhillon, Vanessa Kitchin, Nicola Kopac, Colin Ross, Larry D Lynd

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors.

Joseph Khoa HoFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kennedy BorleFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Nick DragojlovicFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Manrubby DhillonFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Vanessa KitchinFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Nicola KopacFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Colin RossFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Larry D LyndFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. larry.lynd@ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7622-3919

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this review was to summarize all available evidence on the cost effectiveness of potentially curative gene therapies and identify challenges that economic evaluations face in this area.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EconLit) and grey literature sources. We conducted the search on August 23, 2019 and updated it on November 26, 2020. We included all English, French and Spanish language studies that addressed a gene therapy that had received regulatory approval or had entered a phase III trial, and also reported on costs related to the therapy. Critical appraisal was conducted to assess quality of reporting in included studies.

resultsFifty-six studies were identified. Of the 42 full economic evaluations, 71% (n = 30) evaluated chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, most used either a Markov model (n = 17, 40%) and/or a partitioned survival model (n = 17, 40%), and 76% (n = 32) adopted a public or private payer perspective. The model characteristics with the greatest impact on cost effectiveness included assumptions about the efficacy of the treatment and the comparators used.

conclusionAll gene therapies in this review were shown to be more effective than their comparators, although due to high costs not all were considered cost effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. Despite their high cost, some gene therapies have the potential to dominate the alternatives in conditions with high mortality/disability. The choice of comparator and assumptions regarding long-term effectiveness had substantial impacts on cost-effectiveness estimates and need to be carefully considered. Both the quality of inputs and the quality of reporting were highly variable.

Indexed as

Genetic TherapyCost-Benefit Analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.