Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34266465›Full record

ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2021

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 2 on pharmaceutical policy perspectives.

Zoltán Kaló, Zsuzsanna Ida Petykó, Frank-Ulrich Fricke, Nikos Maniadakis, Tomáš Tesař, Kateřina Podrazilová, Jaime Espin, András Inotai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Valuation of Medical Innovation Handling with Uncertainty and Risk.Journal of market access & health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Zoltán KalóCenter for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Üllői rd. 25, 1085, Budapest, Hungary.
Zsuzsanna Ida PetykóCenter for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Üllői rd. 25, 1085, Budapest, Hungary.
Frank-Ulrich FrickeTechnische Hochschule Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany.
Nikos ManiadakisDepartment of Public Health Policies, Sector of Health Systems and Policy, School of Public Health, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece.
Tomáš TesařDepartment of Organisation and Management of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Kateřina PodrazilováAssociation of Health Insurance Companies, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jaime EspinAndalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain.
András InotaiCenter for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Üllői rd. 25, 1085, Budapest, Hungary. andras.inotai@syreon.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0663-2733

Funding

Medicines for Europe Medicines for Europe
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA core evaluation framework that captures the health care and societal benefits of value added medicines (VAMs, also often called repurposed medicines) was proposed in Report 1, aiming to reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and to create incentives for manufacturers to invest into incremental innovation. However, this can be impactful only if the framework can be adapted to heterogeneous health care financing systems in different jurisdictions, and the cost of evidence generation necessitated by the framework takes into account the anticipated benefits for the health care system and rewards for the developers. AREAS COVERED: The framework could potentially improve the pricing and reimbursement decisions of VAMs by adapting it to different country specific decision-contexts such as deliberative processes, augmented cost-effectiveness frameworks or formal multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); alternatively, some of its domains may be added to current general evaluation frameworks of medicines. The proposed evaluation framework may provide a starting point for practices based on which VAMs can be exempted from generic pricing mechanisms or can be integrated into the reimbursement and procurement system, allowing for price differentiation according to their added value. Besides evidence from RCTs, pricing and reimbursement decision processes of VAMs should allow for ex-ante non-RCT evidence for certain domains. Alternatively, relying on ex-post evidence agreements-such as outcome guarantee or coverage with evidence development-can also reduce decision uncertainty.

conclusionsThe core evaluation framework for VAMs could trigger changes in the existing pricing, reimbursement and procurement practices by improving the appraisal of the added value created by incremental innovation.

Indexed as

Drug repurposingEvidenceGeneric reference pricingIncremental innovationMulti-criteria decision analysisValue-added medicinesValue assessment framework

Identifiers

PMID34266465
PMCPMC8280561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.