Systematic review and quality assessment of cost effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer [Revisión y valoración sistemática de la calidad del análisis de costo-efectividad de terapias farmacéuticas para cáncer colorrectal avanzado]

摘要

Objective: To systematically review and assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pharmaceutical therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Data sources: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and EconLit databases were searched for the Medical Subject Headings or text key words quality-adjusted, QALY, life-year gained (LYG), and cost-effectiveness (January 1, 1999-December 31, 2009). Study selection: Original CEAs of mCRC pharmacotherapy published in English were included. CEAs that measured health effects in units other than quality-adjusted life years or LYG and letters to the editor, case reports, posters, and editorials were excluded. Data extraction: Each article was independently assessed by 2 trained reviewers according to a quality checklist created by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Results: Twenty-four CEA studies pertaining to pharmaceutical therapies for mCRC were identified. All studies showed a wide variation in methodologic approaches, which resulted in a different range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for each regimen. We found common methodologic flaws in a significant number of CEA studies, including lack of clear description for critique of data quality; lack of method for adjusting costs for inflation and methods for obtaining expert judgment; no results of model validation; wide differences in the types of perspective, time horizon, study design, cost categories, and effect outcomes; and no quality assess ment of data (cost and effectiveness) for the interventions evaluation. Conclusions: This study has shown a wide variation in the methodology and quality of cost-effectiveness analysis for mCRC. Improving quality and harmonization of CEA for cancer treatment is needed. Further study is suggested to assess the quality of CEA methodology outside the mCRC disease state.