ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2023
A Comparative Analysis of Anticancer Drug Appraisals Including Managed Entry Agreements in South Korea and England.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Utility Analysis and Value-Based Pricing of Digital Therapeutics for Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Chronic Respiratory Disease: Economic Evaluation Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- The value-for-money assessment and funding arrangements for high-priced drugs in an era of uncertainty: a comparative analysis of national health technology assessment agencies in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Values, challenges, and responses associated with high-priced potential cures: perspectives of diverse stakeholders in South Korea.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare appraisal decisions about anticancer drugs between the health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in Korea and England, and investigate whether the decisions and supporting evidence are comparable.
methodsThis study identified 49 anticancer drugs listed by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare between January 2014 and December 2019. Of those, 46 anticancer drugs for 58 indications were included for analysis. Official appraisal documents from both countries for 58 drug-indication pairs were compared and assessed in terms of clinical and economic evidence. Evidence items and their groups for analysis were predefined.
resultsThree-quarters of cases were recommended with managed entry agreements (MEAs) in England and three-fifths in Korea. Finance-based MEA types were most common in both countries. Korean and English authorities made consistent decisions in 48 cases (83%) when classifying decisions as 'recommended' and 'not recommended', while the degree of agreement lowered to 16 cases (28%) when subdividing decisions according to MEA types. When the evidence base was identical, their decisions were more likely to be consistent. Regarding clinical evidence, while the majority of cases referred to the same pivotal studies, differences between the committees' recognized comparators and the appraisal date caused discrepancies in decisions. Economic evidence, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates, was identical in only 12 cases (21%), which contributed to discrepancies.
conclusionEngland relies on economic evaluation, with increasing use of data collection agreements, in contrast with Korea's new procedure exempting companies from providing economic evaluation. While there is possibility for international cooperation in the assessment of clinical evidence, transferability issues exist, particularly with regard to economic evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36536231What 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.