Pharmakoökonomische Studien – Nutzbarkeit für leistungsrechtliche Entscheidungen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Germany, cost-benefit-assessments are incorporated by law since April 2007. In this study it is examined whether published international pharmacoeconomic studies correspond to the methodological recommendations of the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and international guidelines, and whether they are usable for reimbursement decisions. METHODS: Pharmacoeconomic studies were identified by a systematic literature review and compared with the requirements of the IQWiG and 15 other international institutions. In hypothetical selection processes it was examined which and how many studies could be considered as basis for reimbursement decisions. RESULTS: 130 out of 1,982 pharmacoeconomic studies were identified as relevant and analyzed. Most frequently, the USA was mentioned as reference country (41 %) prior to UK (15 %), Canada (6 %) as well as Japan and Germany (each 4 %). In 63 % standard therapy was chosen as comparator. In 60 % of studies the payer's perspective was chosen primarily, in 22 % the societal perspective. Two thirds of the studies were modeled in most parts. Only two studies performed a comparison with standard therapy from the perspective of the statutory health insurance and could have been considered for reimbursement decisions of the G-BA. Only one German study examined the real-life effectiveness and compared it to standard therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed a congruence between the methods of iqwig and other similar international institutions. However, hitherto existing pharmacoeconomic studies do not follow international and German guidelines in many points. In consequence IQWiG will have to perform the analyses itself and the assessment process will be time-consuming and tedious so that in the short and medium term no relevant cost savings can be expected.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.110 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".