A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs

References

• Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9(1):53–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Allen N, Liberti L, Walker SR, et al. A Comparison of reimbursement recommendations by European HTA agencies: is there opportunity for further alignment? Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Pichon-Riviere A, Augustovski F, Rubinstein A, et al. Health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions: are key principles relevant for Latin America? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):421–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoomans T, Severens JL, van der Roer N, et al. Methodological quality of economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(3):219–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang F, He X, Xiang W, et al. Assessment of the quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature in China. J Med Econ. 2017;20(5):510–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt G, Redekop WK, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(6):723–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052): 275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maastricht University [Internet]. Maastricht: Consensus Health Economic Criteria – CHEC list; [cited 2018 Oct 17]. Available from: https://hsr.mumc.maastrichtuniversity.nl/consensus-health-economic-criteria-chec-list
   Google Scholar
• Evers S, Goossens M, De Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(02):240–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shields GE, Wells A, Doherty P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review. Heart. 2018;104(17):1403–1410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gérard C, Fagnoni P, Vienot A, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:207–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter AW, Mandavia R, Mayer E, et al. Systematic review of economic analyses in patient safety: a protocol designed to measure development in the scope and quality of evidence. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e017089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azar FE, Azami-Aghdash S, Pournaghi-Azar F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):413.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubas-Jakóbczyk K, Kocot E, Kissimova-Skarbek K, et al. Economic evaluation of health promotion and primary prevention actions for older people-a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(4):670–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elshout M, Webers CAB, van der Reis MI, et al. A systematic review on the quality, validity and usefulness of current cost-effectiveness studies for treatments of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96(8):770–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourne RR, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(9):e888–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster WJ, Tufail W, Issa AM. The quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of age-related macular degeneration therapeutics: a systematic review and quantitative appraisal of the evidence. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(9):1118–1126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SJ, Ahn S, Park KH. Burden of visual impairment and chronic diseases. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(7):778–784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virgili G, Parravano M, Evans JR, et al. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD007419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braithwaite T, Nanji AA, Lindsley K, et al. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10:CD007325.
   Google Scholar
• Mitry D, Bunce C, Charteris D. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD009510.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon SD, Lindsley K, Vedula SS, et al. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;8:CD005139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingworth W, Jones T, Reeves BC, et al. A longitudinal study to assess the frequency and cost of antivascular endothelial therapy, and inequalities in access, in England between 2005 and 2015. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e018289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erie JC, Barkmeier AJ, Hodge DO, et al. High variation of intravitreal injection rates and medicare anti-vascular endothelial growth factor payments per injection in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(6):1257–1262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parikh R, Ross JS, Sangaralingham LR, et al. Trends of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor use in ophthalmology among privately insured and medicare advantage patients. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(3):352–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland EJ, Luchs J, Karpecki PM, et al. Lifitegrast for the treatment of dry eye disease: results of a phase III, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial (OPUS-3). Ophthalmology. 2017;124(1):53–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al., PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269. ( W64).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology [Internet]. ATC/DDD Index; 2017 [cited 2018 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/
   Google Scholar
• Alouki K, Delisle H, Bermúdez-Tamayo C, et al. Lifestyle interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of economic evaluation studies. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:2159890.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gabrielian A, Hariprasad SM, Jager RD, et al. The utility of visual function questionnaire in the assessment of the impact of diabetic retinopathy on vision-related quality of life. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(1):29–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, et al. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24(4):257–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paz SH, Slotkin J, McKean-Cowdin R, et al. Development of a vision-targeted health-related quality of life item measure. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(9):2477–2487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quaranta L, Riva I, Gerardi C, et al. Quality of life in glaucoma: a review of the literature. Adv Ther. 2016;33(6):959–981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crews JE, Chou CF, Sekar S, et al. The prevalence of chronic conditions and poor health among people with and without vision impairment, aged ≥65 years, 2010–2014. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;182:18–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Javitt JC, Steinberg EP, Sharkey P, et al. Cataract surgery in one eye or both. A billion dollar per year issue. Ophthalmology. 1995;102(11):1583–1592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott DB, Patla AE, Furniss M, et al. Improvements in clinical and functional vision and quality of life after second eye cataract surgery. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77(1):13–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay S, Ferreira AX. Mapping the 25-item national eye institute visual functioning questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) to EQ-5D utility scores. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(2):66–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kymes SM. Is it time to move beyond the QALY in vision research? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2014;21(2):63–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumbar SK, Mirje M, Moharir G, et al. Cost analysis of commonly used combination of drugs in primary open angle glaucoma. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(5):FC05–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Gestel A, Webers CA, Beckers HJ, et al. The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(12):1759–1769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fea AM, Hengerer F, Lavia C, et al. Glaucoma quality of life. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:4257151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guedes R. Quality of life and glaucoma. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2015;74(3):131–132.
   Google Scholar
• European Glaucoma Society [Internet]. Terminology and guidelines for glaucoma. 4th ed.Savona: PubliComm; 2014 [cited 2018 Apr]. Available from: http://www.icoph.org/dynamic/attachments/resources/egs_guidelines_4_english.pdf
   Google Scholar
• International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [Internet]. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Country-specific pharmacoeconomic guidelines; [cited 2018 Apr]. Available from: https://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp
   Google Scholar
• Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, et al. Utility values and age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;18(1):47–51.
   Google Scholar
• Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life associated with visual loss: a time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(6):1076–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergström A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(3):363–371.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sckalicky S, Goldberg I. Quality of life in glaucoma patients. US Ophthalmic Rev. 2013;6(1):6–9.
   Google Scholar
• Panchmatia HR, Clements KM, Hulbert E, et al. Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab: cost-effectiveness of treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(5):441–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmier JK, Hulme-Lowe CK. Cost-effectiveness models in age-related macular degeneration: issues and challenges. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(3):259–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta155/chapter/4-Evidence-and-interpretation#cost-effectiveness
   Google Scholar
• Claxton L, Hodgson R, Malcolm W [Internet]. York health economics consortium. A comparison of modelling techniques: patient simulation vs Markov modelling in ophthalmology; [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://www.yhec.co.uk/yhec-content/uploads/2014/11/NEW-Markov-vs-Simulation-Models-RH-LC.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force–3. Value Health. 2012;15(6):812–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton L, Hodgson R, Taylor M, et al. Simulation modelling in ophthalmology: application to cost effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration in the United Kingdom. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(2):237–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elshout M, van der Reis MI, Webers CA, et al. The cost-utility of aflibercept for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration compared to bevacizumab and ranibizumab and the influence of model parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252(12):1911–1920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Aflibercept for treating visual impairment caused by macular oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion. [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta305/chapter/4-Consideration-of-the-evidence#cost-effectiveness-2
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Aflibercept solution for injection for treating wet age‑related macular degeneration; [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/TA294
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Ranibizumab for treating choroidal neovascularisation associated with pathological myopia; [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta298
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [Internet]. Ranibizumab for treating diabetic macular oedema; [cited 2019 Jan]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/TA274/
   Google Scholar
• Tham YC, Li X, Wong TY, et al. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2081–2090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook C, Foster P. Epidemiology of glaucoma: what’s new? Can J Ophthalmol. 2012;47(3):223–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong WL, Su X, Li X, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(2):e106–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas JB, Cheung CMG, Panda-Jonas S. Updates on the epidemiology of age-related macular degeneration. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017;6(6):493–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington KL, DeAngelis MM. Epidemiology of age-related macular degeneration (AMD): associations with cardiovascular disease phenotypes and lipid factors. Eye Vis (Lond). 2016;3:34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lensberg BR, Drummond MF, Danchenko N, et al. Challenges in measuring and valuing productivity costs, and their relevance in mood disorders. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;5:565–573.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nichols KK, Bacharach J, Holland E, et al. Impact of dry eye disease on work productivity, and patients’ satisfaction with over-the-counter dry eye treatments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(7):2975–2982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deloitte Access Economics Pty Ltd [Internet]. Socioeconomic cost of macular degeneration in New Zealand; 2016 [cited 2018 Mar]. Available from: http://www.mdnz.org.nz/assets/Deloitte-MDNZ-Cost-of-AMD-FINAL-17-Oct-2016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Psaltikidis EM, Silva END, Bustorff-Silva JM, et al. Economic evaluation of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(4):355–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [Internet]. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Comparative table; [cited 2018 Apr]. Available from: https://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/COMP1.asp
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health [Internet]. Canada: guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 3rd ed; 2006 [cited 2018 Jan]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press ; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison LP Jr, Mansley EC, Abbott TA 3rd, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective: the ISPOR drug cost task force report–part II. Value Health. 2010;13(1):8–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collège des Économistes de la Santé [Internet]. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies; 2004 [cited 2018 Jan]. Available from: http://www.ces-asso.org/docs/France_Guidelines_HE_Evaluation.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF. Experimental versus observational data in the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2 Suppl):S12–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerkens S, Crott R, Cleemput I, et al. Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(3):318–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pillai N, Dusheiko M1, Burnand B, et al. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0185500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCreanor V, Graves N, Barnett AG, et al. A systematic review and critical analysis of cost-effectiveness studies for coronary artery disease treatment. F1000 Res. 2018;7:77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michaleff ZA, Lin CW, Maher CG, et al. Spinal manipulation epidemiology: systematic review of cost effectiveness studies. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22(5):655–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar