Cost-effectiveness of pasireotide long-acting release in acromegaly: a systematic literature review and methodology assessment.
Aleksandra Gilis-Januszewska, Małgorzata Bronikowska, Grzegorz Binowski et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic literature review and methodological assessment examined the cost-effectiveness of pasireotide long-acting release (LAR) versus other second-line medical treatments, particularly pegvisomant, for adults with acromegaly. Six publications met the review criteria. Their economic conclusions varied, and the authors found substantial differences in methodological rigor. Two studies favoured pegvisomant on cost-effectiveness, whereas the study judged most methodologically credible found pasireotide LAR to be a cost-effective alternative. Because the studies were few and heterogeneous, the review did not pool their outcomes and concluded that comparative cost-effectiveness evidence remains inconclusive.
Key findings
- Six publications met the inclusion criteria; their cost-effectiveness findings varied, and formal outcome synthesis was not undertaken.
- Two studies indicated that pegvisomant was more cost-effective than pasireotide LAR.
- The study with the highest methodological credibility found pasireotide LAR to be a cost-effective alternative.
Why it matters
Economic evaluations can inform decisions between second-line options when clinical efficacy and safety are established, but this review shows that conclusions may depend heavily on model methods and assumptions. Assessing the credibility of inputs and their fit with disease progression and clinical practice is therefore important when interpreting cost-effectiveness claims in acromegaly.
What to keep in mind
The review included only six publications with notable heterogeneity, preventing formal synthesis; methodological rigor also varied considerably.