确定成本效益分析中有影响的动态输入。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:比较使用一段时间内定价的静态方法与考虑价格随时间变化的方法(动态方法)计算的成本效益估计,并确定哪些动态投入对成本效益的影响最大。方法:经济建模专家小组确定了随时间变化的成本效益分析模型输入,每种动态输入的可能值,以及将动态输入纳入经济模型的方法。根据咨询小组的通知,计算了4个病例的静态和动态成本效益估算:(1)慢性疾病的长期给药治疗,(2)灾难性疾病的长期给药治疗,(3)慢性疾病的一次性治疗,(4)灾难性疾病的一次性治疗。结果:长期给药的静态成本-效果估计比动态估计差82%(病例1)到62%(病例2),一次给药的静态成本-效果估计比动态估计差34%(病例3)到27%(病例4)。对于长期给药的治疗,失去排他性后的价格对成本效益的影响最大。对于一次性治疗,基线年龄和折扣率对成本-效果的影响大于药物的假设价格变化。结论:与静态方法相比,动态方法可能导致成本效益估算有很大不同,特别是对于长期施用的治疗。为了纳入动态,研究应优先评估丧失专有权后的价格变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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