ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026
Methodological Challenges and Preferred Approaches for the Economic Evaluation of CAR T Therapies: Evidence Review and Expert Consensus from NICE Appraisals.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR T) therapies pose challenges for economic evaluation because of complex treatment pathways and uncertainty around long-term outcomes. Within health technology assessment (HTA) bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), these features have led to recurring methodological debates.
objectivesTo identify methodological challenges specific to the HTA of CAR T therapies within NICE technology appraisals and to develop Delphi-informed recommendations to support more consistent modelling practice.
methodsA three-phase mixed-methods study was conducted. Phase 1 involved qualitative content analysis of published NICE appraisals of CAR T therapies to identify methodological issues and solutions. Phase 2 used a modified Delphi to determine which issues were specific to CAR T therapies and to agree upon preferred methodological approaches. Phase 3 involved clinical sense-checking of the preferred methodological approaches.
resultsPhase 1 reviewed nine NICE appraisals, identifying 16 issues around survival modelling, cure assumptions, costing and long-term outcomes. Ten issues were specified in relation to CAR T. Phase 2 identified one further relevant issue. The preferred approaches included modelling from leukapheresis (85%), applying cure assumptions consistently across treatment arms (95%) and applying modest utility decrements for long-term survivors (94%). For delivery costs, 61% preferred the most recent NHS England CAR T tariff with targeted supplements, while 28% preferred the most transparent tariff choice, indicating less uniform agreement. UK-specific real-world data were preferred to inform assumptions on treatment delivery, resource use and subsequent therapies. Phase 3 provided a clinical sense-check of these preferred approaches and identified important additional considerations for future appraisals.
conclusionsMethodological challenges in the economic evaluation of CAR T therapies recur across NICE appraisals and materially influence cost-effectiveness results. Drawing on evidence from NICE appraisals combined with Delphi findings and clinical sense-checking, this study provides practical recommendations relating to model start-point, cure modelling and long-term survivor utility decrements supporting more consistent and transparent economic evaluation within the NICE framework.
Identifiers
42853372What 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.