澳大利亚报销当局评估派姆单抗的长期总生存期与外推总生存期的比较

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Francis C Dehle, Kevin Phan, Jerome Higgins, Kate Applegarth, Manoj Gambhir, Colman B Taylor
{"title":"澳大利亚报销当局评估派姆单抗的长期总生存期与外推总生存期的比较","authors":"Francis C Dehle, Kevin Phan, Jerome Higgins, Kate Applegarth, Manoj Gambhir, Colman B Taylor","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2478234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decisions about government funding for new medicines often rely on statistical models to predict how long patients will live (overall survival, OS) based on early trial data. This study compared the accuracy of these predictions for the cancer drug pembrolizumab, using models preferred by pharmaceutical companies (Sponsors) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), compared to real-world long-term follow-up (LTFU) data.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We reviewed publicly available PBAC summary documents (PSDs) for all funding decisions on pembrolizumab up to November 2022. We included cases with at least three years of follow-up data and where at least 350 patients per year would be treated. We then compared survival predictions from PBAC and Sponsor models to actual survival data at two time points.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total over 38 PSDs covering 15 indications, five met our criteria. Sponsor-preferred models underestimated real survival by 0.54% to 16.45%, while PBAC-preferred models underestimated survival by 1.20% to 24.21%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results demonstrate that OS extrapolation methods used by both the Sponsor and PBAC tend to underestimate long-term survival outcomes for pembrolizumab indications, with PBAC-preferred methods being more conservative.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the accuracy of extrapolated overall survival for pembrolizumab: a comparison with long-term observed data in the Australian reimbursement context.\",\"authors\":\"Francis C Dehle, Kevin Phan, Jerome Higgins, Kate Applegarth, Manoj Gambhir, Colman B Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2025.2478234\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decisions about government funding for new medicines often rely on statistical models to predict how long patients will live (overall survival, OS) based on early trial data. This study compared the accuracy of these predictions for the cancer drug pembrolizumab, using models preferred by pharmaceutical companies (Sponsors) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), compared to real-world long-term follow-up (LTFU) data.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>We reviewed publicly available PBAC summary documents (PSDs) for all funding decisions on pembrolizumab up to November 2022. We included cases with at least three years of follow-up data and where at least 350 patients per year would be treated. We then compared survival predictions from PBAC and Sponsor models to actual survival data at two time points.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total over 38 PSDs covering 15 indications, five met our criteria. Sponsor-preferred models underestimated real survival by 0.54% to 16.45%, while PBAC-preferred models underestimated survival by 1.20% to 24.21%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results demonstrate that OS extrapolation methods used by both the Sponsor and PBAC tend to underestimate long-term survival outcomes for pembrolizumab indications, with PBAC-preferred methods being more conservative.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2478234\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2478234","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:政府资助新药的决策通常依赖于基于早期试验数据的统计模型来预测患者的生存时间(总生存期,OS)。该研究使用制药公司(赞助商)和药物益处咨询委员会(PBAC)首选的模型,与现实世界的长期随访(LTFU)数据相比,比较了这些预测癌症药物派姆单抗的准确性。研究设计和方法:我们回顾了截至2022年11月所有派姆单抗资助决定的公开可用PBAC摘要文件(psd)。我们纳入了至少有三年随访数据的病例,其中每年至少有350名患者接受治疗。然后,我们将PBAC和赞助商模型的生存预测与两个时间点的实际生存数据进行比较。结果:共38例psd,涵盖15个适应症,其中5例符合我们的标准。赞助商首选模型低估了实际生存期0.54% ~ 16.45%,而pbac首选模型低估了实际生存期1.20% ~ 24.21%。结论:结果表明,赞助商和PBAC使用的OS外推方法倾向于低估派姆单抗适应症的长期生存结果,PBAC首选的方法更保守。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the accuracy of extrapolated overall survival for pembrolizumab: a comparison with long-term observed data in the Australian reimbursement context.

Background: Decisions about government funding for new medicines often rely on statistical models to predict how long patients will live (overall survival, OS) based on early trial data. This study compared the accuracy of these predictions for the cancer drug pembrolizumab, using models preferred by pharmaceutical companies (Sponsors) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), compared to real-world long-term follow-up (LTFU) data.

Research design and methods: We reviewed publicly available PBAC summary documents (PSDs) for all funding decisions on pembrolizumab up to November 2022. We included cases with at least three years of follow-up data and where at least 350 patients per year would be treated. We then compared survival predictions from PBAC and Sponsor models to actual survival data at two time points.

Results: A total over 38 PSDs covering 15 indications, five met our criteria. Sponsor-preferred models underestimated real survival by 0.54% to 16.45%, while PBAC-preferred models underestimated survival by 1.20% to 24.21%.

Conclusion: Results demonstrate that OS extrapolation methods used by both the Sponsor and PBAC tend to underestimate long-term survival outcomes for pembrolizumab indications, with PBAC-preferred methods being more conservative.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信