IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v41y2023i6d10.1007_s40273-022-01234-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Sean P. Gavan

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Stuart J. Wright

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Fiona Thistlethwaite

    (The University of Manchester
    The Christie NHS Foundation Trust)

  • Katherine Payne

    (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

Objective Decision-makers need to resolve constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies to patients as these treatments move into routine care. This study aimed to investigate if, and how, constraints that affect the expected cost and health consequences of cell and gene therapies have been included in published examples of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Method A systematic review identified CEAs of cell and gene therapies. Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and by searching Medline and Embase until 21 January 2022. Constraints described qualitatively were categorised by theme and summarised by a narrative synthesis. Constraints evaluated in quantitative scenario analyses were appraised by whether they changed the decision to recommend treatment. Results Thirty-two CEAs of cell (n = 20) and gene therapies (n = 12) were included. Twenty-one studies described constraints qualitatively (70% cell therapy CEAs; 58% gene therapy CEAs). Qualitative constraints were categorised by four themes: single payment models; long-term affordability; delivery by providers; manufacturing capability. Thirteen studies assessed constraints quantitatively (60% cell therapy CEAs; 8% gene therapy CEAs). Two types of constraint were assessed quantitatively across four jurisdictions (USA, Canada, Singapore, The Netherlands): alternatives to single payment models (n = 9 scenario analyses); improving manufacturing (n = 12 scenario analyses). The impact on decision-making was determined by whether the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios crossed a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold for each jurisdiction (outcome-based payment models: n = 25 threshold comparisons made, 28% decisions changed; improving manufacturing: n = 24 threshold comparisons made, 4% decisions changed). Conclusion The net health impact of constraints is vital evidence to help decision-makers scale up the delivery of cell and gene therapies as patient volume increases and more advanced therapy medicinal products are launched. CEAs will be essential to quantify how constraints affect the cost-effectiveness of care, prioritise constraints to be resolved, and establish the value of strategies to implement cell and gene therapies by accounting for their health opportunity cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean P. Gavan & Stuart J. Wright & Fiona Thistlethwaite & Katherine Payne, 2023. "Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 675-692, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01234-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01234-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01234-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01234-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Miqdad Asaria & Aki Tsuchiya & Mark Sculpher, 2019. "Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 577-590, October.
    2. Hauck, K. & Morton, A. & Chalkidou, K. & Chi, Y-Ling & Culyer, A. & Levin, C. & Meacock, R. & Over, M. & Thomas, R. & Vassall, A. & Verguet, S. & Smith, P.C., 2019. "How can we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of health system strengthening? A typology and illustrations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 141-149.
    3. Carlson, Josh J. & Sullivan, Sean D. & Garrison, Louis P. & Neumann, Peter J. & Veenstra, David L., 2010. "Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 179-190, August.
    4. Stuart J. Wright & Mike Paulden & Katherine Payne, 2020. "Implementing Interventions with Varying Marginal Cost-Effectiveness: An Application in Precision Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(7), pages 924-938, October.
    5. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2008. "The Value of Implementation and the Value of Information: Combined and Uneven Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 21-32, January.
    7. Rita Faria & Simon Walker & Sophie Whyte & Simon Dixon & Stephen Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2017. "How to Invest in Getting Cost-effective Technologies into Practice? A Framework for Value of Implementation Analysis Applied to Novel Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 148-161, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Love-Koh & Susan Griffin & Edward Kataika & Paul Revill & Sibusiso Sibandze & Simon Walker & Jessica Ochalek & Mark Sculpher & Matthias Arnold, 2019. "Economic analysis for health benefits package design," Working Papers 165cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & Louise Longworth & Laura Bojke & Susan Griffin & Claire McKenna & Marta Soares & Eldon Spackman & Jihee Youn, 2011. "Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies," Working Papers 069cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Lauren E. Cipriano, 2023. "Pricing Treatments Cost-Effectively when They Have Multiple Indications: Not Just a Simple Threshold Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 914-929, October.
    4. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    5. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    6. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    7. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    8. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    10. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    11. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    12. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    13. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    15. Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Nataša Perić & Judit Simon, 2022. "Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Manuel Gomes & Elizabeth Murray & James Raftery, 2022. "Economic Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 367-378, April.
    17. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    18. Evgeni Dvortsin & Judith Gout-Zwart & Ernst-Lodewijk Marie Eijssen & Jan van Brussel & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Drugs in Early versus Late Stages of Cancer; Review of the Literature and a Case Study in Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    19. Marcelien H. E. Callenbach & Rick A. Vreman & Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse & Wim G. Goettsch, 2022. "When Reality Does Not Meet Expectations—Experiences and Perceived Attitudes of Dutch Stakeholders Regarding Payment and Reimbursement Models for High-Priced Hospital Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01234-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.