基因替代疗法的卫生经济评估:方法问题和建议。

Q2 Medicine
Samuel Aballéa, Katia Thokagevistk, Rimma Velikanova, Steven Simoens, Lieven Annemans, Fernando Antonanzas, Pascal Auquier, Clément François, Frank-Ulrich Fricke, Daniel Malone, Aurélie Millier, Ulf Persson, Stavros Petrou, Omar Dabbous, Maarten Postma, Mondher Toumi
{"title":"基因替代疗法的卫生经济评估:方法问题和建议。","authors":"Samuel Aballéa, Katia Thokagevistk, Rimma Velikanova, Steven Simoens, Lieven Annemans, Fernando Antonanzas, Pascal Auquier, Clément François, Frank-Ulrich Fricke, Daniel Malone, Aurélie Millier, Ulf Persson, Stavros Petrou, Omar Dabbous, Maarten Postma, Mondher Toumi","doi":"10.1080/20016689.2020.1822666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: To provide recommendations for addressing previously identified key challenges in health economic evaluations of Gene Replacement Therapies (GRTs), including: 1) the assessment of clinical effectiveness; 2) the valuation of health outcomes; 3) the time horizon and extrapolation of effects beyond trial duration; 4) the estimation of costs; 5) the selection of appropriate discount rates; 6) the incorporation of broader elements of value; and 7) affordability. <b>Methods</b>: A literature review on economic evaluations of GRT was performed. Interviews were conducted with 8 European and US health economic experts with experience in evaluations of GRT. Targeted literature reviews were conducted to investigate further potential solutions to specific challenges. <b>Recommendations</b>: Experts agreed on factors to be considered to ensure the acceptability of historical cohorts by HTA bodies. Existing prospective registries or, if not available, retrospective registries, may be used to analyse different disease trajectories and inform extrapolations. The importance of expert opinion due to limited data was acknowledged. Expert opinion should be obtained using structured elicitation techniques. Broader elements of value, beyond health gains directly related to treatment, can be considered through the application of a factor to inflate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or a higher cost-effectiveness threshold. Additionally, the use of cost-benefit analysis and saved young life equivalents (SAVE) were proposed as alternatives to QALYs for the valuations of outcomes of GRT as they can incorporate broader elements of value and avoid problems of eliciting utilities for paediatric diseases. <b>Conclusions</b>: While some of the limitations of economic evaluations of GRT are inherent to limited clinical data and lack of experience with these treatments, others may be addressed by methodological research to be conducted by health economists.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"1822666"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ec/af/ZJMA_8_1822666.PMC7580851.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health economic evaluation of gene replacement therapies: methodological issues and recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Aballéa, Katia Thokagevistk, Rimma Velikanova, Steven Simoens, Lieven Annemans, Fernando Antonanzas, Pascal Auquier, Clément François, Frank-Ulrich Fricke, Daniel Malone, Aurélie Millier, Ulf Persson, Stavros Petrou, Omar Dabbous, Maarten Postma, Mondher Toumi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20016689.2020.1822666\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: To provide recommendations for addressing previously identified key challenges in health economic evaluations of Gene Replacement Therapies (GRTs), including: 1) the assessment of clinical effectiveness; 2) the valuation of health outcomes; 3) the time horizon and extrapolation of effects beyond trial duration; 4) the estimation of costs; 5) the selection of appropriate discount rates; 6) the incorporation of broader elements of value; and 7) affordability. <b>Methods</b>: A literature review on economic evaluations of GRT was performed. Interviews were conducted with 8 European and US health economic experts with experience in evaluations of GRT. Targeted literature reviews were conducted to investigate further potential solutions to specific challenges. <b>Recommendations</b>: Experts agreed on factors to be considered to ensure the acceptability of historical cohorts by HTA bodies. Existing prospective registries or, if not available, retrospective registries, may be used to analyse different disease trajectories and inform extrapolations. The importance of expert opinion due to limited data was acknowledged. Expert opinion should be obtained using structured elicitation techniques. Broader elements of value, beyond health gains directly related to treatment, can be considered through the application of a factor to inflate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or a higher cost-effectiveness threshold. Additionally, the use of cost-benefit analysis and saved young life equivalents (SAVE) were proposed as alternatives to QALYs for the valuations of outcomes of GRT as they can incorporate broader elements of value and avoid problems of eliciting utilities for paediatric diseases. <b>Conclusions</b>: While some of the limitations of economic evaluations of GRT are inherent to limited clinical data and lack of experience with these treatments, others may be addressed by methodological research to be conducted by health economists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"1822666\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ec/af/ZJMA_8_1822666.PMC7580851.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1822666\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1822666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的为应对基因替代疗法(GRTs)健康经济评估中先前确定的主要挑战提供建议,包括:1)临床有效性评估;2)健康结果估值;3)时间跨度和试验期以外的效果推断;4)成本估算;5)选择适当的贴现率:1) 临床有效性评估;2) 健康结果估值;3) 时间跨度和超出试验期限的效果外推法;4) 成本估算;5) 选择适当的贴现率;6) 纳入更广泛的价值要素;以及 7) 可负担性。方法:对 GRT 的经济评估进行了文献综述。与 8 位具有 GRT 评估经验的欧洲和美国卫生经济专家进行了访谈。进行了有针对性的文献综述,以进一步研究应对特定挑战的潜在解决方案。建议:专家们就确保 HTA 机构接受历史队列需要考虑的因素达成了一致。现有的前瞻性登记或(如果没有)回顾性登记可用于分析不同的疾病轨迹并为推断提供信息。由于数据有限,专家意见的重要性得到了认可。专家意见应通过结构化征询技术获得。除了与治疗直接相关的健康收益外,还可以考虑更广泛的价值要素,具体方法是采用一个系数来提高质量调整生命年(QALYs)或更高的成本效益阈值。此外,还有人建议使用成本效益分析和挽救的年轻生命当量(SAVE)来替代 QALYs,对 GRT 的结果进行估值,因为它们可以纳入更广泛的价值要素,并避免为儿科疾病提取效用的问题。结论:虽然 GRT 经济评估的某些局限性是由有限的临床数据和缺乏治疗经验造成的,但其他局限性可通过卫生经济学家开展的方法学研究加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health economic evaluation of gene replacement therapies: methodological issues and recommendations.

Objective: To provide recommendations for addressing previously identified key challenges in health economic evaluations of Gene Replacement Therapies (GRTs), including: 1) the assessment of clinical effectiveness; 2) the valuation of health outcomes; 3) the time horizon and extrapolation of effects beyond trial duration; 4) the estimation of costs; 5) the selection of appropriate discount rates; 6) the incorporation of broader elements of value; and 7) affordability. Methods: A literature review on economic evaluations of GRT was performed. Interviews were conducted with 8 European and US health economic experts with experience in evaluations of GRT. Targeted literature reviews were conducted to investigate further potential solutions to specific challenges. Recommendations: Experts agreed on factors to be considered to ensure the acceptability of historical cohorts by HTA bodies. Existing prospective registries or, if not available, retrospective registries, may be used to analyse different disease trajectories and inform extrapolations. The importance of expert opinion due to limited data was acknowledged. Expert opinion should be obtained using structured elicitation techniques. Broader elements of value, beyond health gains directly related to treatment, can be considered through the application of a factor to inflate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or a higher cost-effectiveness threshold. Additionally, the use of cost-benefit analysis and saved young life equivalents (SAVE) were proposed as alternatives to QALYs for the valuations of outcomes of GRT as they can incorporate broader elements of value and avoid problems of eliciting utilities for paediatric diseases. Conclusions: While some of the limitations of economic evaluations of GRT are inherent to limited clinical data and lack of experience with these treatments, others may be addressed by methodological research to be conducted by health economists.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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