Study on Online Tools of Pharmacoeconomic Model Construction and Value Communication
Author(s)
Genyong Zuo, PhD1, Yan-jun Zhang, PhD2, Yongbo Gao, Master2, Liu Zehui, Master1, Furong Tian, Master1, Li Yang, Master3;
1Centre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China, 2Medical Affairs, Takeda (China) International Trading Company, Beijing, China, 3Jinan Preschool Education College, Jinan, China
1Centre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine Shandong University, Jinan, China, 2Medical Affairs, Takeda (China) International Trading Company, Beijing, China, 3Jinan Preschool Education College, Jinan, China
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Traditional pharmacoeconomic model construction is complex, costly, and often plagued by issues with reproducibility. In contrast, online pharmacoeconomic tools will enhance the transparency, standardization, normalization, automation, and dynamism of the model-building process. This study aims to systematically summarize and compare different online pharmacoeconomic tools (including templates, models and platforms), and to propose novel approaches for future pharmacoeconomic model construction and value communication.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through academic databases, ISPOR presentations database and web browsers available by October 15, 2024. Finally, four budget impact analysis (BIA) templates provided by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, four online BIA models, four online Markov models, one online partitioned survival model and two platforms for value communication were identified. These models and platforms were then systematically compared to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, identifying the most suitable ones for application.
RESULTS: Agencies such as NICE in England, PBAC in Australia, SMC in Scotland and NCPE in Ireland only provide BIA templates without dedicated cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) models. The development of online CEA models is primarily undertaken by third-party organizations, including the University of York, University of Oxford, Guangzhou Zhongwei Public HTA Institute, Avalere Health, Pharmerit, ICER Analytics and the University of Granada. The pharmacoeconomic value communication platforms are primarily developed by BaseCase (Certara Germany GmbH, Charlottenstr. 16 10117 Berlin, Germany) and Disease Model Platform (Normin Health Consulting Ltd). Differences were observed across platforms in terms of transparency, standardization, automation, and value communication.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacoeconomic online tools help simplify tasks, reduce costs, and improve work quality. However, the applicability of such tools may be limited by the complexity of models, diseases, therapeutic products, and comparators involved. Among these, online BIA models are likely to be the first to achieve broader adoption in the near future.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through academic databases, ISPOR presentations database and web browsers available by October 15, 2024. Finally, four budget impact analysis (BIA) templates provided by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, four online BIA models, four online Markov models, one online partitioned survival model and two platforms for value communication were identified. These models and platforms were then systematically compared to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, identifying the most suitable ones for application.
RESULTS: Agencies such as NICE in England, PBAC in Australia, SMC in Scotland and NCPE in Ireland only provide BIA templates without dedicated cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) models. The development of online CEA models is primarily undertaken by third-party organizations, including the University of York, University of Oxford, Guangzhou Zhongwei Public HTA Institute, Avalere Health, Pharmerit, ICER Analytics and the University of Granada. The pharmacoeconomic value communication platforms are primarily developed by BaseCase (Certara Germany GmbH, Charlottenstr. 16 10117 Berlin, Germany) and Disease Model Platform (Normin Health Consulting Ltd). Differences were observed across platforms in terms of transparency, standardization, automation, and value communication.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacoeconomic online tools help simplify tasks, reduce costs, and improve work quality. However, the applicability of such tools may be limited by the complexity of models, diseases, therapeutic products, and comparators involved. Among these, online BIA models are likely to be the first to achieve broader adoption in the near future.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
HTA87
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Systems & Structure
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas