ReviewHealth economics review2026
Value of information analyses for advanced cell therapies: a systematic review.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced cell therapies often face high parameter uncertainty at launch, prompting calls to collect further data about long-term effectiveness and safety. However, the value of collecting these data to support resource allocation decision-making is not known. Therefore, this study aimed to appraise all published value of information analyses for advanced cell therapies.
methodsA systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023446874) identified value of information analyses for advanced cell therapies between inception and 14 May 2025 (databases: Medline; Embase). Included studies reported the expected value of perfect information (EVPI), expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI), expected value of sample information (EVSI) or expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). Study design and value of information results were summarised in a narrative synthesis. Quality of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI) checklist.
resultsThree published value of information analyses were identified: tisagenlecleucel for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia; tisagenlecleucel for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and tumor infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy for advanced melanoma. The beneficiary populations were 6, 36, and 400 individuals per year, respectively. All studies reported EVPI; two studies reported EVPPI. Estimated base case population EVPI was: €314,455, €0, and €2,250,000, respectively. Estimated EVPPI indicated that input parameters for survival extrapolations were the most valuable targets for further research specifically during scenario analyses that explored a lower cost of treatment acquisition.
conclusionsValue of information analyses will help decision-makers, analysts, and manufacturers understand whether long-term data collection is worthwhile to reduce decision uncertainty for advanced cell therapies at launch. Current estimates indicated that the value of further research is likely to be low. The value of collecting additional data will likely increase if future advanced cell therapies are priced such that their corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio aligns with a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold and if they are indicated for larger beneficiary populations.
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.