Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Methods Used in Evaluations of Treatment for Cystic Fibrosis: A Scoping Review.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-29 DOI:10.1007/s40273-025-01497-w
Dominique Seo, David C Young, Eberechukwu Onukwugha, T Joseph Mattingly
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Methods Used in Evaluations of Treatment for Cystic Fibrosis: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Dominique Seo, David C Young, Eberechukwu Onukwugha, T Joseph Mattingly","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01497-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare genetic condition requiring extensive medical care, which has a significant impact on people with CF. Advances in treatment have extended life expectancy, yet there remains a significant economic burden to manage CF. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is crucial for evaluating the economic value of treatments and screening for CF. This scoping review seeks to highlight the best practices and gaps in the current evidence base, contributing to robust and comparable CEAs in CF research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted using PubMed and Embase. Studies were included if they featured a CEA focused on CF treatment. Data extraction covered study characteristics, model inputs, and modeling assumptions. A qualitative synthesis was conducted to assess the inclusion of considerations for both healthcare and societal impacts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 11 studies were included. Of these, six focused on evaluations of supportive therapies for CF and five focused on evaluation of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators. Heterogeneity in comparators and drug costing methods complicated cross-study comparisons. A qualitative review revealed differences in the types of costs and outcomes considered. Studies captured long-term disease progression, health-related quality-of-life effects, and direct medical costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review highlights the complexity of CEAs for CF treatment and underscores the need for standardized methodologies and comprehensive evaluations, including broader economic impacts, to support more robust analyses and better-informed decision-making in CF treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"711-721"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01497-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare genetic condition requiring extensive medical care, which has a significant impact on people with CF. Advances in treatment have extended life expectancy, yet there remains a significant economic burden to manage CF. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is crucial for evaluating the economic value of treatments and screening for CF. This scoping review seeks to highlight the best practices and gaps in the current evidence base, contributing to robust and comparable CEAs in CF research.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed and Embase. Studies were included if they featured a CEA focused on CF treatment. Data extraction covered study characteristics, model inputs, and modeling assumptions. A qualitative synthesis was conducted to assess the inclusion of considerations for both healthcare and societal impacts.

Results: In total, 11 studies were included. Of these, six focused on evaluations of supportive therapies for CF and five focused on evaluation of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators. Heterogeneity in comparators and drug costing methods complicated cross-study comparisons. A qualitative review revealed differences in the types of costs and outcomes considered. Studies captured long-term disease progression, health-related quality-of-life effects, and direct medical costs.

Conclusions: This review highlights the complexity of CEAs for CF treatment and underscores the need for standardized methodologies and comprehensive evaluations, including broader economic impacts, to support more robust analyses and better-informed decision-making in CF treatment.

用于囊性纤维化治疗评价的成本-效果分析方法:范围综述。
背景:囊性纤维化(CF)是一种罕见的遗传性疾病,需要广泛的医疗护理,这对CF患者有重大影响。治疗的进步延长了预期寿命,但管理CF仍然存在重大的经济负担。成本效益分析(CEA)对于评估治疗和CF筛查的经济价值至关重要。本综述旨在突出当前证据基础中的最佳实践和差距。有助于CF研究中健壮和可比较的cea。方法:使用PubMed和Embase进行范围综述。以CF治疗为重点的CEA纳入研究。数据提取包括研究特征、模型输入和建模假设。进行了定性综合,以评估纳入对保健和社会影响的考虑因素。结果:共纳入11项研究。其中,6项研究侧重于CF支持疗法的评估,5项研究侧重于囊性纤维化跨膜传导调节剂(CFTR)调节剂的评估。比较物和药物成本计算方法的异质性使交叉研究比较复杂化。一项定性审查揭示了所考虑的成本和结果类型的差异。研究捕获了长期疾病进展、健康相关的生活质量影响和直接医疗费用。结论:本综述强调了CF治疗cea的复杂性,强调了标准化方法和综合评估的必要性,包括更广泛的经济影响,以支持CF治疗中更可靠的分析和更明智的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信