SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2021
Economic Evidence on Potentially Curative Gene Therapy Products: A Systematic Literature Review.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy for Blood Cancers: An Updated Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Pooled it
- Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Value of information analyses for advanced cell therapies: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Pharmacoeconomic Profiles of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies identified during technology appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- On the potential value of eHTA: a commentary on "Defining Early Health Technology Assessment: Building Consensus Using Delphi Technique".International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Economic Burden of Haemophilia from a Societal Perspective: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Review
- Is it enough just to demonstrate that the advanced therapy medicinal products do work or we would prefer to keep walking on the Moon?Regenerative therapy · 2023Article
- The Progression of Treatment for Refractory Hypercholesterolemia: Focus on the Prospect of Gene Therapy.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
34156648What 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.