101. Review of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Russian Cancer Research: An Outside View
- Author
-
Nikolai Matveev, Murray Krahn, Jeffrey S Hoch, Dilfuza Djalalova, and Sandjar Djalalov
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Databases, Factual ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Cost-Benefit Analysis ,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous) ,Decision tree ,Russia ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Funding source ,Neoplasms ,Medicine ,Humans ,Medical physics ,Quality (business) ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Economics, Pharmaceutical ,Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous) ,media_common ,Scope (project management) ,business.industry ,Quality assessment ,030503 health policy & services ,Health Policy ,Publications ,Cost utility ,Quality Score ,Economic evaluation ,Quality-Adjusted Life Years ,0305 other medical science ,business - Abstract
Background There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown. Objectives This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia. Methods Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion. Results Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies. Conclusion Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.
- Published
- 2018