| Literature DB >> 22377753 |
Andrew W Wilson1, Peter J Neumann2.
Abstract
Due to the increasing availability and costs of biopharmaceuticals, policymakers are questioning whether they provide good value relative to other health interventions and many are increasingly relying on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to supplement decision-making. Analyzing data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, this study critically reviewed the cost-utility literature for biopharmaceuticals and compared their value to other health interventions. Of 2,383 studies in the registry, biopharmaceutical CUAs comprised the sixth largest category of interventions at 11%. Characteristics of biopharmaceutical articles were similar to other CUAs; however, they displayed slightly better quality. The median cost-effectiveness ratio of biopharmaceuticals was less favorable (i.e., higher) than other interventions though many seem to provide value for money. A logistic regression showed that among biopharmaceuticals the cost-effectiveness of industry-sponsored studies and products that treat infectious diseases were significantly more likely to be favorable (less than the overall median), while cancer and neurological treatments were significantly less likely.Entities:
Keywords: biopharmaceuticals; cost-effectiveness; cost-utility analysis; economic analysis; quality adjusted life-year; value for money
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22377753 PMCID: PMC3361664 DOI: 10.4161/mabs.4.2.18812
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MAbs ISSN: 1942-0862 Impact factor: 5.857