On 2017 Mar 04, Andrea Messori commented:

PubMed database: A selection of pharmacoeconomic studies based on the net monetary benefit

Andrea Messori, HTA Unit, Regional Health Service, Firenze, Italy

The objective of the study by Capri and co-workers was to compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma; the perspective was that of the Italian National Health Service.

In patients with cancer, most economic studies based on this design are carried out by determining the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). In contrast, one reason of interest of the study by Capri and co-workers is that the net monetary benefit (NMB) was the methodological tool employed to carry out the pharmacoeconomic analysis.

Although the NMB is not the standard tool for performing these analyses, there are some advantages in using this parameter as opposed to the ICER. For example, while the relationship between the cost of the intervention and the ICER is nonlinear, the relationship between the cost of the intervention and the NMB is linear. Hence, predicting the consequences of an increased cost of treatment (or a decreased cost of treatment) is easier, or more intuitive, if the NMB is used rather than the ICER.

Using a standard syntax of PubMed search (“net monetary benefit”[text]; search date = 4 March 2017), we identified a total of 148 citations that met this criterion. Among these citations, we selected 20 studies published between 2010 and 2016 in which the NMB played a key role in generating the pharmacoeconomic results (see http://www.osservatorioinnovazione.net/papers/nmb20examples.html).

Curiously enough, among these 148 citations, some studies were lacking in which the NMB had been successfully employed (e.g. Ganesalingam J, Pizzo E, Morris S, Sunderland T, Ames D, Lobotesis K.Cost-Utility Analysis of Mechanical Thrombectomy Using Stent Retrievers in Acute Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. 2015 Sep;46(9):2591-8, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26251241/); this indicates that the keyword “net monetary benefit” in PubMed misses a number of pertinent articles.

In conclusion, despite the low number of retrieved articles, our preliminary overview of the literature shows that the NMB is still being used in pharmacoeconomic studies and deserves to be further investigated.

On 2017 Mar 04, Andrea Messori commented:

PubMed database: A selection of pharmacoeconomic studies based on the net monetary benefit

Andrea Messori, HTA Unit, Regional Health Service, Firenze, Italy

The objective of the study by Capri and co-workers was to compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma; the perspective was that of the Italian National Health Service.

In patients with cancer, most economic studies based on this design are carried out by determining the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). In contrast, one reason of interest of the study by Capri and co-workers is that the net monetary benefit (NMB) was the methodological tool employed to carry out the pharmacoeconomic analysis.

Although the NMB is not the standard tool for performing these analyses, there are some advantages in using this parameter as opposed to the ICER. For example, while the relationship between the cost of the intervention and the ICER is nonlinear, the relationship between the cost of the intervention and the NMB is linear. Hence, predicting the consequences of an increased cost of treatment (or a decreased cost of treatment) is easier, or more intuitive, if the NMB is used rather than the ICER.

Using a standard syntax of PubMed search (“net monetary benefit”[text]; search date = 4 March 2017), we identified a total of 148 citations that met this criterion. Among these citations, we selected 20 studies published between 2010 and 2016 in which the NMB played a key role in generating the pharmacoeconomic results (see http://www.osservatorioinnovazione.net/papers/nmb20examples.html).

Curiously enough, among these 148 citations, some studies were lacking in which the NMB had been successfully employed (e.g. Ganesalingam J, Pizzo E, Morris S, Sunderland T, Ames D, Lobotesis K.Cost-Utility Analysis of Mechanical Thrombectomy Using Stent Retrievers in Acute Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. 2015 Sep;46(9):2591-8, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26251241/); this indicates that the keyword “net monetary benefit” in PubMed misses a number of pertinent articles.

In conclusion, despite the low number of retrieved articles, our preliminary overview of the literature shows that the NMB is still being used in pharmacoeconomic studies and deserves to be further investigated.