How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer?
Abstract Background Model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a widely used method for evaluating the value of innovative medicines for lung cancer. However, comprehensive evidence exploring the sources of input parameters for CUA modeling is lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Health Economics Review |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-025-00651-6 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849767394043494400 |
|---|---|
| author | Haijing Guan Chunping Wang Ruowei Xiao Ting Zhou Wei Li Yanan Xu Hongting Nie Zhigang Zhao Sheng Han Feng Xie |
| author_facet | Haijing Guan Chunping Wang Ruowei Xiao Ting Zhou Wei Li Yanan Xu Hongting Nie Zhigang Zhao Sheng Han Feng Xie |
| author_sort | Haijing Guan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a widely used method for evaluating the value of innovative medicines for lung cancer. However, comprehensive evidence exploring the sources of input parameters for CUA modeling is lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the sources of clinical efficacy and safety, cost, and health utility parameters in model-based CUAs for advanced lung cancer in the United States (US) and China. Methods We systematically reviewed model-based CUAs of pharmacological treatments for advanced lung cancer published between January 1, 2018 and March 31, 2025 in the US and Chinese setting. We classified the source of each parameter and retrieved the references cited for the parameters to analyze the citation path and level until we identified the original studies. We also compared the disease and region of parameters used in CUAs with those reported in the original studies. Results A total of 235 studies involving 10,005 parameters were included. Nearly half of the parameters (49.9%) were derived from published literature. Meanwhile, 17.7% had unidentifiable sources and 1.3% were based on assumptions. Among parameters cited from published literatures, 90.7% were first-level citations, but only 64.2% of cost parameters met this standard. Additionally, 30.8% of parameters showed discrepancies in disease or region between the CUAs and original studies. Parameter source distributions were similar between Chinese and US models. However, substantial differences were observed between Chinese and US models in the citation levels of cost parameters and the use of non-local utility data. Conclusions This study highlights challenges in parameter citation and the use of data inconsistent with the target disease and region in model-based CUAs. Enhancing transparency requires direct citation of original studies and generation of disease- and region-specific data to support robust economic evaluations. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-b1b286a572904de9b8a42aab3e4e0a42 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2191-1991 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Health Economics Review |
| spelling | doaj-art-b1b286a572904de9b8a42aab3e4e0a422025-08-20T03:04:14ZengBMCHealth Economics Review2191-19912025-06-0115111210.1186/s13561-025-00651-6How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer?Haijing Guan0Chunping Wang1Ruowei Xiao2Ting Zhou3Wei Li4Yanan Xu5Hongting Nie6Zhigang Zhao7Sheng Han8Feng Xie9Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical UniversityInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking UniversityInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking UniversitySchool of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical UniversityInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking UniversityDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical UniversityDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical UniversityDepartment of Pharmacy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical UniversityInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking UniversityDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster UniversityAbstract Background Model-based cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a widely used method for evaluating the value of innovative medicines for lung cancer. However, comprehensive evidence exploring the sources of input parameters for CUA modeling is lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the sources of clinical efficacy and safety, cost, and health utility parameters in model-based CUAs for advanced lung cancer in the United States (US) and China. Methods We systematically reviewed model-based CUAs of pharmacological treatments for advanced lung cancer published between January 1, 2018 and March 31, 2025 in the US and Chinese setting. We classified the source of each parameter and retrieved the references cited for the parameters to analyze the citation path and level until we identified the original studies. We also compared the disease and region of parameters used in CUAs with those reported in the original studies. Results A total of 235 studies involving 10,005 parameters were included. Nearly half of the parameters (49.9%) were derived from published literature. Meanwhile, 17.7% had unidentifiable sources and 1.3% were based on assumptions. Among parameters cited from published literatures, 90.7% were first-level citations, but only 64.2% of cost parameters met this standard. Additionally, 30.8% of parameters showed discrepancies in disease or region between the CUAs and original studies. Parameter source distributions were similar between Chinese and US models. However, substantial differences were observed between Chinese and US models in the citation levels of cost parameters and the use of non-local utility data. Conclusions This study highlights challenges in parameter citation and the use of data inconsistent with the target disease and region in model-based CUAs. Enhancing transparency requires direct citation of original studies and generation of disease- and region-specific data to support robust economic evaluations.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-025-00651-6Economic evaluationCost-utility analysisSources of parametersModel transparencyLung cancer |
| spellingShingle | Haijing Guan Chunping Wang Ruowei Xiao Ting Zhou Wei Li Yanan Xu Hongting Nie Zhigang Zhao Sheng Han Feng Xie How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer? Health Economics Review Economic evaluation Cost-utility analysis Sources of parameters Model transparency Lung cancer |
| title | How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer? |
| title_full | How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer? |
| title_fullStr | How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer? |
| title_full_unstemmed | How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer? |
| title_short | How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer? |
| title_sort | how was published evidence used in model based cost utility analysis for lung cancer |
| topic | Economic evaluation Cost-utility analysis Sources of parameters Model transparency Lung cancer |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-025-00651-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT haijingguan howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT chunpingwang howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT ruoweixiao howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT tingzhou howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT weili howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT yananxu howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT hongtingnie howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT zhigangzhao howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT shenghan howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer AT fengxie howwaspublishedevidenceusedinmodelbasedcostutilityanalysisforlungcancer |