Economic Evaluations of Pharmaceuticals Granted a Marketing Authorisation Without the Results of Randomised Trials: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy

Anthony J. Hatswell (), Nick Freemantle and Gianluca Baio
Additional contact information
Anthony J. Hatswell: University College London
Nick Freemantle: University College London
Gianluca Baio: University College London

PharmacoEconomics, 2017, vol. 35, issue 2, No 3, 163-176

Abstract: Abstract Background Pharmaceuticals are usually granted a marketing authorisation on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Occasionally the efficacy of a treatment is assessed without a randomised comparator group (either active or placebo). Objective To identify and develop a taxonomic account of economic modelling approaches for pharmaceuticals licensed without RCT data. Methods We searched PubMed, the websites of UK health technology assessment bodies and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Scientific Presentations Database for assessments of treatments granted a marketing authorisation by the US Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency from January 1999 to May 2014 without RCT data (74 indications). The outcome of interest was the approach to modelling efficacy data. Results Fifty-one unique models were identified in 29 peer-reviewed articles, 30 health technology appraisals, and 15 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research abstracts concerning 30 indications (44 indications had not been modelled). We noted the high rate of non-submission to health technology assessment agencies (28/98). The majority of models (43/51) were based on ‘historical controls’—comparisons to previous meta-analysis or pooling of trials (5), individual trials (16), registries/case series (15), or expert opinion (7). Other approaches used the patient as their own control, performed threshold analysis, assumed time on treatment was added to overall survival, or performed cost-minimisation analysis. Conclusions There is considerable variation in the quality and approach of models constructed for drugs granted a marketing authorisation without a RCT. The most common approach is of a naive comparison to historical data (using other trials/registry data as a control group), which has considerable scope for bias.

Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0460-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0460-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0460-6

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().