Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34465350›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2021

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 1 on methodology and findings.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

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

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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedicines that are based on known molecules and are further developed to address healthcare needs and deliver relevant improvement for patients, healthcare professionals and/or payers are called value-added medicines (VAMs). The evaluation process of VAMs is heterogeneous across countries, and it has been primarily designed for originator pharmaceuticals with confirmatory evidence collected alongside pivotal clinical trials. There is a mismatch between evidence requirements by public decision-makers and evidence generated by manufacturers of VAMs. Our objective was to develop a core evaluation framework for VAMs.

methodsPotential benefits offered by VAMs were collected through a systematic literature review and allocated to separate domains in an iterative process. The draft list of domains and their applicability were validated during two consecutive virtual workshops by health policy experts representing countries with different economic statuses, geographical and decision-making contexts.

resultsBased on 158 extracted studies, the final consensus on the evaluation framework resulted in 11 value domains in 5 main clusters, including unmet medical needs, health gain (measured by health care professionals), patient-reported outcomes, burden on households, and burden on the health care system.

conclusionsThe proposed framework could reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and create incentives for manufacturers to invest in incremental innovation. However, some domains may not be equally relevant or accepted in all countries, therefore the core framework needs thorough adaptation in specific jurisdictions.

Indexed as

Expert panelGeneric price erosionIncremental innovationRepurposed medicineValue-added medicinesValue assessment frameworkValue domainValue proposition

Identifiers

PMID34465350
PMCPMC8406013

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.