A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation on Targeted Therapies for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Quality Evaluation
Authors Zhao J, Du S, Zhu Y, Liang Y, Lu J, Chang F
Received 6 February 2020
Accepted for publication 4 May 2020
Published 9 June 2020 Volume 2020:12 Pages 4357—4368
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Eileen O'Reilly
Jie Zhao,1,2 Shuzhang Du,2 Yumei Zhu,1 Yan Liang,2 Jingli Lu,2 Feng Chang1
1School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Feng Chang
School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, #639 Longmian Avenue, Jiangning District, Nanjing 211198, People’s Republic of China
Background: Evolving practices in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy inevitably affect health care budgets, especially through the introduction of targeted therapies. This results in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEEs) in this domain. This article reviews the quality of the economic evidence of targeted therapies used in metastatic NSCLC.
Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and CRD (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) databases to identify topical original articles published between 1/1/2000 and 3/31/2019. A quality of reporting assessment using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement) checklist was converted into a quantitative score and compared with the results of a QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies) evaluation. Components of QHES were also used to analyze the validity of primary outcomes, consideration of heterogeneity and rationality of main assumptions of models in modeling studies.
Results: In total, 25 HEEs were obtained and analyzed. From the CHEERS assessment, it was found that method description integrity (including setting, perspective, time horizon and discount rate), justification of data sources and a heterogeneity description were often absent or incomplete. Only five examined studies met the accepted standard of good quality. Modeled articles were examined with the QHES instrument, and a lack of illustrated structure, population variability, formula of the transitioning probability and justification for the choice of the model were the most frequently observed problems in the selected studies. After quantification, the CHEERS scores and QHES scores did not differ significantly.
Conclusion: Current NSCLC models generally lack consideration for demographic heterogeneity and transparency of data description, and it would be difficult to transfer or generalize from the scientific literature to real-world evidence-based decision-making. Frameworks of future models should be informed and justified based on the validity of model results and the improvement of modeling accuracy.
Keywords: quality evaluation, targeted therapies for NSCLC, CHEERS, QHES
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]