Melanie D Whittington, Joshua T Cohen, Peter J Neumann, Tyler D Wagner, Jonathan D Campbell
{"title":"确定成本效益分析中有影响的动态输入。","authors":"Melanie D Whittington, Joshua T Cohen, Peter J Neumann, Tyler D Wagner, Jonathan D Campbell","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.03.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Compare cost-effectiveness estimates calculated using a static approach to pricing over time with an approach that accounts for price changes over time (a dynamic approach) and identify which dynamic inputs have the greatest influence on cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of economic modeling experts identified cost-effectiveness analysis model inputs that change over time, possible values for each dynamic input, and approaches for incorporating dynamic inputs into an economic model. Informed by the advisory panel, static and dynamic cost-effectiveness estimates were calculated for 4 cases: (1) a chronically administered treatment for a chronic condition, (2) a chronically administered treatment for a catastrophic condition, (3) a 1-time treatment for a chronic condition, and (4) a 1-time treatment for a catastrophic condition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The static cost-effectiveness estimate was less favorable than the dynamic estimate for a chronically administered drug by between 82% (case 1) and 62% (case 2), and for a 1-time drug by between 34% (case 3) and 27% (case 4). For chronically administered treatments, the post-loss-of-exclusivity price had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness. For 1-time treatments, the age of individuals at baseline and the discount rate had a greater impact on cost-effectiveness than the drug's assumed price changes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with a static approach, a dynamic approach can result in substantially different cost-effectiveness estimates, especially for treatments administered over time. To incorporate dynamics, research should prioritize estimating price changes after loss of exclusivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying the Influential Dynamic Inputs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Melanie D Whittington, Joshua T Cohen, Peter J Neumann, Tyler D Wagner, Jonathan D Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.03.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Compare cost-effectiveness estimates calculated using a static approach to pricing over time with an approach that accounts for price changes over time (a dynamic approach) and identify which dynamic inputs have the greatest influence on cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of economic modeling experts identified cost-effectiveness analysis model inputs that change over time, possible values for each dynamic input, and approaches for incorporating dynamic inputs into an economic model. Informed by the advisory panel, static and dynamic cost-effectiveness estimates were calculated for 4 cases: (1) a chronically administered treatment for a chronic condition, (2) a chronically administered treatment for a catastrophic condition, (3) a 1-time treatment for a chronic condition, and (4) a 1-time treatment for a catastrophic condition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The static cost-effectiveness estimate was less favorable than the dynamic estimate for a chronically administered drug by between 82% (case 1) and 62% (case 2), and for a 1-time drug by between 34% (case 3) and 27% (case 4). For chronically administered treatments, the post-loss-of-exclusivity price had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness. For 1-time treatments, the age of individuals at baseline and the discount rate had a greater impact on cost-effectiveness than the drug's assumed price changes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with a static approach, a dynamic approach can result in substantially different cost-effectiveness estimates, especially for treatments administered over time. To incorporate dynamics, research should prioritize estimating price changes after loss of exclusivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.03.016\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.03.016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Identifying the Influential Dynamic Inputs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.
Objectives: Compare cost-effectiveness estimates calculated using a static approach to pricing over time with an approach that accounts for price changes over time (a dynamic approach) and identify which dynamic inputs have the greatest influence on cost-effectiveness.
Methods: A panel of economic modeling experts identified cost-effectiveness analysis model inputs that change over time, possible values for each dynamic input, and approaches for incorporating dynamic inputs into an economic model. Informed by the advisory panel, static and dynamic cost-effectiveness estimates were calculated for 4 cases: (1) a chronically administered treatment for a chronic condition, (2) a chronically administered treatment for a catastrophic condition, (3) a 1-time treatment for a chronic condition, and (4) a 1-time treatment for a catastrophic condition.
Results: The static cost-effectiveness estimate was less favorable than the dynamic estimate for a chronically administered drug by between 82% (case 1) and 62% (case 2), and for a 1-time drug by between 34% (case 3) and 27% (case 4). For chronically administered treatments, the post-loss-of-exclusivity price had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness. For 1-time treatments, the age of individuals at baseline and the discount rate had a greater impact on cost-effectiveness than the drug's assumed price changes.
Conclusions: Compared with a static approach, a dynamic approach can result in substantially different cost-effectiveness estimates, especially for treatments administered over time. To incorporate dynamics, research should prioritize estimating price changes after loss of exclusivity.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.