Ahmad Al Kadour1, Wafa Al Marridi2, Daoud Al-Badriyeh3. 1. College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. 2. College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar; Pharmacy Department, Sidra Medical and Research Centre, Doha, Qatar. 3. College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. Electronic address: daoud.a@qu.edu.qa.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review literature characteristics, describe methodological trends, and assess the reporting quality of the economic evaluations of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs). METHODS: The review included comparative economic evaluations of OACDs. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Economic Evaluation Database, and studies till December 2017 were included. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, literature inclusion and data extraction were performed in duplicate by separate investigators. Outcome measures were literature characteristics, gaps and methodological trends, and reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data were summarized on the basis of methodological themes of interest. Descriptive statistics and tabulations were used for result presentation. RESULTS: Out of 241 found articles, 21 were included. There is a recent increasing interest in the economics of OACDs, whereby the cost per quality-adjusted life-year, via cost-utility analysis, is the most used for decision making. Most of the studies were from the payer perspective, and the primary sources of data were clinical trials, expert panels, and medical charts. The dominance status (higher effect, lower cost) was a commonly reported outcome. Decision-analytic modeling was used in most of the studies, mostly including Markov modeling. Studies were highly heterogeneous in methodological aspects, and the included studies did not meet most of the reporting quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: High heterogeneity in methods in studies may limit the robustness and transferability of results, potentially misleading decision makers toward wrong decisions on OACDs. The transferability and generalizability of results are further limited by a "less than ideal" adherence to current reporting standards.
OBJECTIVES: To review literature characteristics, describe methodological trends, and assess the reporting quality of the economic evaluations of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs). METHODS: The review included comparative economic evaluations of OACDs. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Economic Evaluation Database, and studies till December 2017 were included. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, literature inclusion and data extraction were performed in duplicate by separate investigators. Outcome measures were literature characteristics, gaps and methodological trends, and reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data were summarized on the basis of methodological themes of interest. Descriptive statistics and tabulations were used for result presentation. RESULTS: Out of 241 found articles, 21 were included. There is a recent increasing interest in the economics of OACDs, whereby the cost per quality-adjusted life-year, via cost-utility analysis, is the most used for decision making. Most of the studies were from the payer perspective, and the primary sources of data were clinical trials, expert panels, and medical charts. The dominance status (higher effect, lower cost) was a commonly reported outcome. Decision-analytic modeling was used in most of the studies, mostly including Markov modeling. Studies were highly heterogeneous in methodological aspects, and the included studies did not meet most of the reporting quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: High heterogeneity in methods in studies may limit the robustness and transferability of results, potentially misleading decision makers toward wrong decisions on OACDs. The transferability and generalizability of results are further limited by a "less than ideal" adherence to current reporting standards.