Evidence-based evaluation of global value assessment tools_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

JIANG Qian ¹ ,  LI Youping ² , YU Jiajie ² , HU Zhiqiang ¹ , LIU Hui ¹

1. Department of Pharmacy, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Cancer Hospital affiliate to School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610054, P.R.China;
2. The Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

LI Youping, Email: yzmylab@hotmail.com

Keywords：

Antineoplastic agents; Value; Evidence-based evaluation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201903126

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objectives To evaluate the characteristics, main contents, key elements and techniques of global drug value assessment tools, especially for those developed for antineoplastic agents, and to provide reference for the establishment of the first value assessment tool for antineoplastic agents in China.Methods Databases including MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and 19 relevant websites of institutions and societies were searched from inception to October 31st, 2018 to identify all the drug value assessment tools worldwide. Two independent reviewers screened the literatures, extracted the data and cross-checked them according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A qualitative analysis was conducted to describe the characteristics of these drug value assessment tools, including the publishing organization, year of publication, country, applicable type of disease and drug category, result display, and etc. Key elements and techniques in terms of evaluation dimensions, sources and levels of evidence, methods and procedures to form the tool were compared.Results A total of 12 English drug value assessment tools were included, which were published in 2010 to 2018 exclusively from Europe and North America. The applicable types of diseases and drug categories are not identical. The target users and stakeholders of each tool were slightly different. Evaluation dimensions, sources and levels of evidence, methods and procedures to form the tool were vital issues in value evaluation for drugs.Conclusions The structures of existing drug value assessment tools were almost the identical. However, there is no consensus on value definitions, evaluation dimensions, sources of evidence and result display. Methods and procedures to form the tool are not well described. It is urgent to explore and develop a value-oriented, focused and feasible drug assessment tool for antineoplastic agents in order to satisfy the strategic requirements of value-based post-marketing drug reevaluation.

Citation： JIANG Qian, LI Youping, YU Jiajie, HU Zhiqiang, LIU Hui. Evidence-based evaluation of global value assessment tools. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(7): 856-862. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201903126 Copy

1.	Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, et al. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Ins, 2011, 103(2): 117-128.
2.	石菊芳, 石春雷, 岳馨培, 等. 1996-2014年中国恶性肿瘤经济负担的系统评价. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2016, 38(12): 929-941.
3.	海韵. 医保支付制度改革需要把握的若干关键问题探讨-药品价格形成机制与医保支付研讨会观点综述. 中国医疗保险, 2017, 11(11): 36-39.
4.	Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014, 63(21): 2304-2322.
5.	Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures; ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 2014, 129(22): 2329-2345.
6.	Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Evaluating the value of new drugs and devices. 2015. Avaliable at: www.icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Value-Assessment-Framework-9-71.pdf.
7.	Institute for clinical and economic review. Overview of the ICER assessment framework and update for 2017-2019. Available at: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ICER-value-assessment-framework-update-FINAL-062217.pdf.
8.	Rocha-Gonçalves F, Borges M, Redondo P, et al. Health technology assessment and value: the cancer value label (CAVALA) methodology. Ecancermedicalscience, 2016, 10: 685.
9.	Patient-perspective value framework (PPVF) Version 1.0. FasterCures. Available at: https://www.fastercures.org/programs/patients-count/patient-perspective-value-framework/.
10.	Angelis A, Kanavos P. multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med, 2017, 188: 137-156.
11.	Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol, 2015, 33(23): 2563-2577.
12.	Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol, 2016, 34(24): 2925-2934.
13.	National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines) with NCCN evidence blocks. Available at: www.nccn.org/evidenceblocks/default.aspx.
14.	Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol, 2015, 26(8): 1547-1573.
15.	Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardized, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol, 2017, 28(11): 2901-2905.
16.	Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Drug Pricing Lab. The drug abacus tool. Available at: http://drugpricinglab.org/tools/drug-abacus/.
17.	Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. pCODR Expert Review Committee deliberative framework. Available at: https://cadth.ca/pcodr.
18.	Process on corporate social responsibility in the field of pharmaceuticals platform on access to medicines in EuropeWorking Group on Mechanism of Coordinated Access to Orphan Medicinal Products (MoCA-OMP). Final Report. 2013-4-17.
19.	O’Mahony B, Dolan G, Nugent D, et al. Patient-centred value framework for haemophilia. Haemophilia, 2018, 1: 1-7.
20.	Vivot A, Jacot J, Zeitoun JD, et al. Clinical benefit, price and approval characteristics of FDA-approved new drugs for treating advanced solid cancer, 2000-2015. Ann Oncol, 2017, 28(5): 1111-1116.
21.	Cheng S, McDonald EJ, Cheung MC, et al. Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale measure the same construct of clinical benefit? J Clin Oncol, 2017, 35(24): 2764-2771.
22.	李幼平, 杨克虎. 循证医学. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2014.
23.	Promoting value, affordability, and innovation in cancer drug treatment. A report to the president of the United States from the President’s Cancer Panel. Bethesda (MD): President’s Cancer Panel; 2018.

1. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, et al. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Ins, 2011, 103(2): 117-128.
2. 石菊芳, 石春雷, 岳馨培, 等. 1996-2014年中国恶性肿瘤经济负担的系统评价. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2016, 38(12): 929-941.
3. 海韵. 医保支付制度改革需要把握的若干关键问题探讨-药品价格形成机制与医保支付研讨会观点综述. 中国医疗保险, 2017, 11(11): 36-39.
4. Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014, 63(21): 2304-2322.
5. Anderson JL, Heidenreich PA, Barnett PG, et al. ACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures; ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 2014, 129(22): 2329-2345.
6. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Evaluating the value of new drugs and devices. 2015. Avaliable at: www.icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Value-Assessment-Framework-9-71.pdf.
7. Institute for clinical and economic review. Overview of the ICER assessment framework and update for 2017-2019. Available at: https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ICER-value-assessment-framework-update-FINAL-062217.pdf.
8. Rocha-Gonçalves F, Borges M, Redondo P, et al. Health technology assessment and value: the cancer value label (CAVALA) methodology. Ecancermedicalscience, 2016, 10: 685.
9. Patient-perspective value framework (PPVF) Version 1.0. FasterCures. Available at: https://www.fastercures.org/programs/patients-count/patient-perspective-value-framework/.
10. Angelis A, Kanavos P. multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med, 2017, 188: 137-156.
11. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol, 2015, 33(23): 2563-2577.
12. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol, 2016, 34(24): 2925-2934.
13. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines) with NCCN evidence blocks. Available at: www.nccn.org/evidenceblocks/default.aspx.
14. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol, 2015, 26(8): 1547-1573.
15. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardized, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol, 2017, 28(11): 2901-2905.
16. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Drug Pricing Lab. The drug abacus tool. Available at: http://drugpricinglab.org/tools/drug-abacus/.
17. Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. pCODR Expert Review Committee deliberative framework. Available at: https://cadth.ca/pcodr.
18. Process on corporate social responsibility in the field of pharmaceuticals platform on access to medicines in EuropeWorking Group on Mechanism of Coordinated Access to Orphan Medicinal Products (MoCA-OMP). Final Report. 2013-4-17.
19. O’Mahony B, Dolan G, Nugent D, et al. Patient-centred value framework for haemophilia. Haemophilia, 2018, 1: 1-7.
20. Vivot A, Jacot J, Zeitoun JD, et al. Clinical benefit, price and approval characteristics of FDA-approved new drugs for treating advanced solid cancer, 2000-2015. Ann Oncol, 2017, 28(5): 1111-1116.
21. Cheng S, McDonald EJ, Cheung MC, et al. Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale measure the same construct of clinical benefit? J Clin Oncol, 2017, 35(24): 2764-2771.
22. 李幼平, 杨克虎. 循证医学. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2014.
23. Promoting value, affordability, and innovation in cancer drug treatment. A report to the president of the United States from the President’s Cancer Panel. Bethesda (MD): President’s Cancer Panel; 2018.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Evidence-based evaluation of global value assessment tools

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content