ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Pragmatic health technology appraisals of biosimilars: a pilot case study of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer for NICE.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of biosimilars can lead to substantial price reductions which can alter cost-effectiveness conclusions in health technology assessments. This study, undertaken for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), aimed to pilot a test-and-learn approach for biosimilars appraisals whilst pragmatically assessing the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab (originator and biosimilars) plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
methodsA partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, post-progression and dead) was used. No additional active lines of treatment were modelled assuming that all further treatments were cost-effective and assuming no interaction between bevacizumab and the efficacy of subsequent treatments. Analyses were undertaken independently for the use of bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy as first-line, and second-line, treatment. Analyses were conducted in line with NICE guidance. The clinical effectiveness of treatments was estimated from reviews of previous NICE technology appraisals, published literature, and expert input. Confidential prices of bevacizumab weighted by the market share were used.
resultsThe use of bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was shown to extend life and increase quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Whilst cost per QALY values cannot be reported due to confidentiality reasons, the NICE Appraisal Committee stated that these were below what NICE considers a cost-effective use of resources for both first- and second-line treatment.
conclusionsThe pragmatic modelling approach piloted was accepted by NICE and allowed for a quicker, internally funded, appraisal of bevacizumab biosimilars; this approach likely can be extended to other biosimilar appraisals.
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.