Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36205907›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in therapy2022

Systematic Literature Review of the Use of Productivity Losses/Gains in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Immune-Mediated Disorders.

Akira Yuasa, Naohiro Yonemoto, Kazumasa Kamei, Toshiaki Murofushi, Michael LoPresti, Ankush Taneja, Jake Horgan, Shunya Ikeda

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Akira YuasaPfizer Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3699-7231
Naohiro YonemotoPfizer Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Kazumasa KameiPfizer Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Toshiaki MurofushiINTAGE Healthcare Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Michael LoPrestiINTAGE Healthcare Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Ankush TanejaLumanity, Gurugram, India.
Jake HorganLumanity, Sheffield, UK.
Shunya IkedaDepartment of Public Health, School of Medicine, International University of Health and Welfare, 4-3, Kozunomori, Narita, 286-8686, Japan. shunya@iuhw.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-1866-2155
Pfizer (Japan) · JPInternational University of Health and Welfare · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn light of the lack of an agreed international standard for how to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), including cost-utility analyses (CUAs) from a societal perspective, there is uncertainty regarding to what extent the inclusion of productivity losses/gains in economic evaluations can affect cost-effectiveness results and subsequently decisions on whether to recommend new health technologies. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic review of CEAs and CUAs of drug-based therapies for a set of chronic immune-mediated disorders to understand how cost elements and calculation methods related to productivity losses/gains are used, examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of including productivity costs, and explore factors that affect the inclusion of productivity loss.

methodsDatabases (MEDLINE

resultsOur searches identified 5016 records, culminating in 198 unique studies from 234 publications following screening. Most of the studies investigated rheumatoid arthritis (37.0%) or psoriasis (32.0%). The majority were CUAs, with some including both a CEA and a CUA (73.0%). Most studies used a payer perspective only (28.5%) or a societal perspective only (21.0%). Of the 49 studies incorporating productivity losses/gains, 42 reported the type of cost element used; all of these used patient absenteeism, either alone or in addition with other elements. Only 16 studies reported the method used to value productivity changes, of which eight used a human capital approach, four used a friction cost approach and four used both approaches. Twenty-eight of the 49 studies (57.1%) reported inclusion of productivity losses/gains as contributing to more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes and ICERs, while 12 (24.5%) reported no substantial impact. On the basis of a multivariate analysis, rheumatoid arthritis as the target disease had a statistically significant association with the inclusion of productivity loss compared with psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease.

conclusionsThe results of our review suggest that incorporating productivity cost elements may positively affect cost-effectiveness outcomes in evaluations of therapeutics for immune-mediated disorders. Our work highlights the continued need for clarity when reporting how CEAs and CUAs in this disease area are conducted, in order to better inform healthcare decision-making.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidPsoriasisAbsenteeismAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisEfficiencyHumansCost-effectiveness analysisCost-utility analysisHealth technology assessmentIndirect costProductivity lossPsoriasisRheumatoid arthritisSystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID36205907
PMCPMC9540264
OpenAlexW4303199210

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.