Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36905571›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2023

Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review.

Sean P Gavan, Stuart J Wright, Fiona Thistlethwaite, Katherine Payne

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Supporting translation with early health technology assessment: from definition to action.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Sean P GavanManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. sean.gavan@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-056X
Stuart J WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-7998
Fiona ThistlethwaiteDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4832-7008
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3938-4350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDecision-makers need to resolve constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies to patients as these treatments move into routine care. This study aimed to investigate if, and how, constraints that affect the expected cost and health consequences of cell and gene therapies have been included in published examples of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

methodA systematic review identified CEAs of cell and gene therapies. Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and by searching Medline and Embase until 21 January 2022. Constraints described qualitatively were categorised by theme and summarised by a narrative synthesis. Constraints evaluated in quantitative scenario analyses were appraised by whether they changed the decision to recommend treatment.

resultsThirty-two CEAs of cell (n = 20) and gene therapies (n = 12) were included. Twenty-one studies described constraints qualitatively (70% cell therapy CEAs; 58% gene therapy CEAs). Qualitative constraints were categorised by four themes: single payment models; long-term affordability; delivery by providers; manufacturing capability. Thirteen studies assessed constraints quantitatively (60% cell therapy CEAs; 8% gene therapy CEAs). Two types of constraint were assessed quantitatively across four jurisdictions (USA, Canada, Singapore, The Netherlands): alternatives to single payment models (n = 9 scenario analyses); improving manufacturing (n = 12 scenario analyses). The impact on decision-making was determined by whether the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios crossed a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold for each jurisdiction (outcome-based payment models: n = 25 threshold comparisons made, 28% decisions changed; improving manufacturing: n = 24 threshold comparisons made, 4% decisions changed).

conclusionThe net health impact of constraints is vital evidence to help decision-makers scale up the delivery of cell and gene therapies as patient volume increases and more advanced therapy medicinal products are launched. CEAs will be essential to quantify how constraints affect the cost-effectiveness of care, prioritise constraints to be resolved, and establish the value of strategies to implement cell and gene therapies by accounting for their health opportunity cost.

Indexed as

Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisHealth Care CostsCanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNetherlands

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.