ArticlePharmacoEconomics2023
Incorporating Dynamic Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Are Known Unknowns Valuable?
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Action Plan to Better Approximate Reality in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Cost Effectiveness of Osimertinib with Chemotherapy Compared to Osimertinib Monotherapy and First-Generation EGFR-TKIs in Advanced NSCLC in the USA.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- US cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, focusing on equal value of life years and health years in total.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Are Medical Device Characteristics Included in HTA Methods Guidelines and Reports? A Brief Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices.Forum for health economics & policy · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent practice in health technology assessment (HTA) of pharmaceuticals conducts cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) based on a static price or the estimated price at market launch. Recent publications suggest incorporating dynamic pricing. To test the feasibility and importance of including dynamic pricing, we compared the standard static approach to four dynamic scenarios by replicating US-based HTA evaluations with dynamic pricing inputs.
methodsThe four case examples included omalizumab (Xolair
resultsBase-case ICERs were $327,000, $102,000, $700,000, and $102,000 for allergic asthma, endometriosis, PPMS, and AD, respectively. Across scenarios and case examples, the range of ICERs versus base-case varied from decreases of 56% to increases of 232%. The absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case ranged from decreases of $120,000 to increases of $758,000. Conclusions on cost effectiveness were altered in 2/16 scenarios across the four case examples.
conclusionsGiven the decision context that US payers face, with prices varying over time, findings suggest further research to reduce uncertainty around price trajectories, as well as conducting or updating multiple assessments over the lifecycle of pharmaceutical products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.