Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36995531›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2024

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement.

P Nieto-Gómez, C Castaño-Amores, A Rodríguez-Delgado, R Álvarez-Sánchez

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

P Nieto-GómezPharmacy Unit, Hospital Santa Bárbara, Street Malagón S/N, 13500, Puertollano, Spain. pnietog90@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4154-7937
C Castaño-AmoresPharmacy Unit, Hospital San Cecilio, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1711-2730
A Rodríguez-DelgadoPharmacy Unit, Hospital Santa Ana, Motril, Spain.
R Álvarez-SánchezPharmacy Unit, Hospital Universitario de Cabueñes, Gijón, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

resultsIn total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

conclusionOur study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMedical OncologySpainAntineoplastic AgentsClinical benefitNeoplasms/drug therapyValue-based reimbursement

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.