ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Influence of clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness on reimbursement decisions for lung cancer drugs in Spain.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn principle, reimbursement decisions for oncological drugs in Spain hinge on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness, yet factors guiding these decisions are not fully explained in reimbursement reports. This study examines these criteria for a cohort of lung cancer drugs in Spain and estimates and describes the cost-effectiveness, clinical benefit, and reimbursement decisions for lung cancer and mesothelioma drugs authorized in Spain between 2010 and 2023. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical benefit was assessed using four scales from medical societies and Health Technology Assessment Agencies (HTAA). Cost-effectiveness was estimated using notified and reimbursed prices, and effects were obtained from HTAA reports. Reimbursement decisions were reviewed from official sources (BIFIMED). Statistical analyses and models were carried out to determine influencing factors.
results28 drugs and 55 indications were analysed. A total of 50 drugs and 165 indications were excluded from the analysis as they were not related to lung cancer. A positive association was found between clinical benefit and reimbursement decision (OR: 3.20; CI95%: 1.46-7.44; p < 0.01). The median of the estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €91,568 (IQR 43,944 - 133,384) per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained with notified prices and €41,030/QALY (IQR 22,213 - 76,390) with reimbursed prices (p < 0.0001). Statistical models showed that substantial clinical benefit increased the probability of positive reimbursement decision by 35-40% points. Cost-effectiveness, presence of therapeutic alternatives, disease incidence or presence of uncertainty had no significant influence.
conclusionsOur study reveals a positive association between clinical benefit and reimbursement decisions for lung cancer drugs in Spain. No evidence was found that cost-effectiveness is associated with reimbursement decisions.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.