Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35923520›Full record

ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2022

Quantifying the Value of Introducing an Oral Drug Delivery Option for Edaravone: A Review of Analyses Evaluating the Economic Impact of Oral versus Intravenous Formulations.

Naoko A Ronquest, Kyle Paret, Aaron Lucas, Malgorzata Ciepielewska, Melissa Hagan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Naoko A RonquestHealth Economics, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0496-9973
Kyle ParetHealth Economics, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0589-2031
Aaron LucasHealth Economics, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA.
Malgorzata CiepielewskaMedical Affairs-HEOR/RWE/Publications, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, Inc, Jersey City, NJ, USA.
Melissa HaganMedical Affairs-HEOR/RWE/Publications, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, Inc, Jersey City, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Drug formulation and route of administration can have an impact on not only patients' quality of life and disease outcomes but also costs of care. It is essential for decision makers to use appropriate economic modeling methods to guide drug coverage policies and to support patients' decision-making. Purpose: To illustrate key cost considerations for decision makers in economic evaluation of innovative oral formulations as alternatives to intravenous medication. Materials and Methods: A structured literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to examine methods used for quantifying the economic impact of introducing a new oral pharmaceutical formulation as an alternative to intravenous medication. To illustrate the methods described in this review, a cost-minimization analysis was conducted to quantify the impact of introducing an oral formulation of a medication originally developed as an intravenous treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Results: We identified 14 published evaluations of oral and intravenous formulations from 10 countries across a variety of disease areas. The identified studies used cost-effectiveness (n=10), cost-minimization (n=2), and cost-calculation (n=2) modeling approaches. All but one (13/14) reported outcomes from payers' perspective, while societal perspectives were also incorporated in 3 of the reviewed evaluations. One study estimated costs from a public hospital's perspective. Only a subset of the identified studies accounted for the effects of safety (n=6) or efficacy (n=8) differences on treatment costs when estimating the costs of a formulation choice. Many studies that omitted these aspects did not include rationales for their decisions. Conclusion: We found significant design variations in published models that estimated the impact of an additional formulation option on the treatment costs to payers and the society. Models need to be accompanied with clear descriptions on rationales for their time horizons and assumptions on how different formulations may affect healthcare costs from the selected perspectives.

Indexed as

amyotrophic lateral sclerosiscost-effectiveness analysiscost-minimizationdecision makersformulation comparison

Identifiers

PMID35923520
PMCPMC9342658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.