Due to the increasing availability and costs of biopharmaceuticals, policymakers are questioning whether they provide good value relative to other health interventions and many are increasingly relying on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) to supplement decision-making. Analyzing data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, this study critically reviewed the cost-utility literature for biopharmaceuticals and compared their value to other health interventions. Of 2,383 studies in the registry, biopharmaceutical CUAs comprised the sixth largest category of interventions at 11%. Characteristics of biopharmaceutical articles were similar to other CUAs; however, they displayed slightly better quality. The median cost-effectiveness ratio of biopharmaceuticals was less favorable (i.e., higher) than other interventions though many seem to provide value for money. A logistic regression showed that among biopharmaceuticals the cost-effectiveness of industry-sponsored studies and products that treat infectious diseases were significantly more likely to be favorable (less than the overall median), while cancer and neurological treatments were significantly less likely.

由于生物药物的可用性和成本不断增加，政策制定者质疑它们是否提供相对于其他健康干预措施的良好价值，并且许多人越来越依赖成本效用分析 (CUA) 来补充决策。本研究分析了来自塔夫茨医疗中心成本效益分析登记处的数据，批判性地审查了生物制药的成本效用文献，并将其价值与其他健康干预措施进行了比较。在注册的 2,383 项研究中，生物制药 CUA 占第六大干预类别，占 11%。生物制药制品的特征与其他CUA相似；然而，它们的质量稍好一些。生物制药的中位成本效益比不太有利（即，比其他干预措施更高），尽管许多措施似乎物有所值。逻辑回归表明，在生物制药中，行业赞助的研究和治疗传染病的产品的成本效益明显更有可能是有利的（低于总体中位数），而癌症和神经系统治疗的可能性明显较低。