Assessing the Quality of Economic Evaluations of FDA Novel Drug Approvals: A Systematic Review

Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Economic Evaluations of Orphan Drugs in Rare Diseases: An Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There are significant challenges when obtaining clinical and economic evidence for health technology assessments of rare diseases. Many of them have been highlighted in previous systematic reviews but they have not been summarised in a comprehensive manner. For all stakeholders working with rare diseases, it is important to be aware and understand these issues. The objective of this review is to identify the main challenges for the economic evaluation of orphan drugs in rare diseases.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic reviews of economic studies concerned with orphan and ultra-orphan drugs was conducted. Studies that were not systematic reviews, or on advanced therapeutic medicinal products, personalised medicines or other interventions that were not considered orphan drugs were excluded. The database searches included publications from 2010 to 2023, and were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library using filters for systematic reviews, and economic evaluations and models. These filters were combined with search terms for rare diseases and orphan drugs. A hand search supplemented the literature searches. The findings were reported by a compliant Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-two records were identified from the literature searches, of which 64 were duplicates, whereas five reviews were identified from the hand search. A total of 36 reviews were included after screening against inclusion/exclusion criteria, 35 from literature searches and one from hand searching. Of those studies 1, 27 and 8 were low, moderate and high quality, respectively. The reviews highlight the scarcity of evidence for health economic parameters, for example, clinical effectiveness, costs, quality of life and the natural history of disease. Health economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness and budget-impact analyses were scarce, and generally low-to-moderate quality. The causes were limited health economic parameters, together with publications bias, especially for cost-effectiveness analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlighted issues around a considerable paucity of evidence for economic evaluations and few cost-effectiveness analyses, supporting the notion that a paucity of evidence makes economic evaluations of rare diseases more challenging compared with more prevalent diseases. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for more sustainable approaches in economic evaluations of rare diseases.

Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Health Economic Evaluation Studies (2007-2019) Conducted in South Korea

BACKGROUND

South Korea formally adopted economic evaluation in December 2006 to aid drug reimbursement decision-making. While this policy change is applied only to pharmaceuticals, it has also sparked interest in economic evaluations for non-pharmaceutical interventions and programmes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide a snapshot of the current practice for published health economic evaluation studies and critically assess the quality of these studies.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (EMBASE, PubMed, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Scopus, Korean Medical database, Korean studies Information Service System, and Research Information Sharing Service) to identify health economic evaluation studies published between January 2007 and December 2019. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed, original health economic evaluations (cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimisation, and cost-benefit analyses) published in English or Korean. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from the included studies. Key characteristics of these studies were descriptively summarised, and study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument on a 100-point scale.

RESULTS

A total of 162 studies were included in this review (63 for drugs, 51 for non-pharmaceutical treatments/health technologies, and 48 for health programmes). These numbers confirm a significant increase in the number of publications since the policy introduction. However, the quality of these studies remained relatively low, with a mean QHES score of 57.9 (± 16.0). Study quality also varied substantially, with the QHES scores ranging from 15 to 87. The scores were notably lower in studies with non-pharmaceutical interventions and programmes, cost-effectiveness analyses or cost-benefit analyses, retrospective study-based or simple modelling-based analyses, and those locally published. In addition, a considerable proportion of these studies did not state or specify essential components of economic evaluation, such as perspectives (30.2%), time horizons (29.6%), discount rates (34.6%), and sensitivity analyses (24.7%). While the use of local data either fully or partially was relatively higher for unit costs (94.4%) and resource utilisation (90.1%), it was lower for utility weights (47.1%), treatment effects (63.0%), and baseline risks (70.4%). Transferability or generalisability issues were infrequently discussed when relying on foreign sources. In addition, the included studies were often not well structured, making it difficult to assess their quality.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that there is still much room for improving the quality of health economic evaluation studies conducted in South Korea. Policymakers should critically evaluate available cost-effectiveness evidence, especially for non-pharmaceutical interventions and programmes, when using it for decision-making in South Korea.

Quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The number of pharmacoeconomic publications in the literature from China has risen rapidly, but the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications from China has not been analyzed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify all recent pharmacoeconomic publications from China, to critically appraise the reporting quality, and to summarize the results.

METHODS

Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and EmBase) were searched for original articles published up to December 31, 2014. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement including 24 items was used to assess the quality of reporting of these articles.

RESULTS

Of 1046 articles identified, 32 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They were published in 23 different journals. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 18.7 (SD = 4.33) out of 24 (range 9-23.5). There was an increasing trend of pharmacoeconomic publications and reporting quality over years from 2003 to 2014. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, the reporting quality for the items including "title," "comparators of method," and "measurement of effectiveness" are quite low, with less than 50% of studies fully satisfying these reporting standards. In contrast, reporting was good for the items including "introduction," "study perspective," "choice of health outcomes," "study parameters," "characterizing heterogeneity," and "discussion," with more than 75% of the articles satisfying these reporting criteria. The remaining items fell in between these 2 extremes, with 50% to 75% of studies satisfying these criteria.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests the need for improvement in a number of reporting criteria. But the criteria for which reporting quality was low seem to be limitations that would be straightforward to correct in future studies.