Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of anti-obesity drugs for chronic weight management: a systematic review of literature.

Introduction: Pharmacological therapy is recommended as a second-line alternative to reverse obesity. Currently, five anti-obesity drugs (AODs) have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for chronic weight management. The aim of this paper is to investigate the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of AODs through a systematic review with a special focus on methodological considerations. Methods: We searched the general and specific databases to identify the primary pharmacoeconomic evaluation of AODs. Results: A total of 18 full-text articles and three conference abstracts were included in this review. Most of the economic assessments were still about Orlistat. And the observations we could make were consistent with the previous systematic review. A few studies were on the combined therapies (i.e. PHEN/TPM ER and NB ER) compared to different comparators, which could hardly lead to a generalized summary of the cost-effectiveness. Most recently, pharmacoeconomic evidence on the newest GLP 1 RA approved for the indication of obesity or obesity with at least one comorbidity emerged gradually. Modelling-based cost-utility analysis is the major type of assessment method. In the modelling studies, a manageable number of the key health states and the state transitions were structured to capture the disease progression. In particular, the principal structure of the decision model adopted in the three studies on the newly approved drug was nearly the same, which enables more in-depth comparisons and generalizations of the findings. Conclusion: This study provided an up-to-date overview of the strengths and areas for improvement in the methodological design of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the licensed drugs for chronic weight management. Future modelling evaluations would benefit from a better understanding of the long-term weight loss effects of the current therapeutic options and the weight rebound process after the discontinuation of treatment. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022302648, identifier CRD42022302648.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC. METHODS: We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. RESULTS: Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.