Exploring uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis. Francis Ruiz NICE International (acknowledgements to: Benjarin Santatiwongchai of HITAP)

Similar documents
Appendix. Lifetime extrapolation of data from the randomised controlled DiGEM trial

NICE Guidelines for HTA Issues of Controversy

Clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole for the prevention of occlusive vascular events (review of Technology Appraisal No.

How cost-effective is screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms? Kim L G, Thompson S G, Briggs A H, Buxton M J, Campbell H E

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 September 2012 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta264

Cost-effectiveness of tolvaptan (Jinarc ) for the treatment of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD)

Study population The study population comprised a hypothetical cohort of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 27 January 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta380

Critical Appraisal Skills. Professor Dyfrig Hughes Health Economist AWMSG

CHAPTER 10 CANCER REPORT. Angela Webster Germaine Wong

1. Comparative effectiveness of liraglutide

Response to Appraisal Consultation Document on topotecan for the treatment of recurrent and stage IVB carcinoma of the cervix.

Value Based Health Care in the UK: NICE, VBP and the Cost-effectiveness Threshold. Eldon Spackman, MA, PhD

Linezolid for treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin Shorr A F, Susla G M, Kollef M H

Addendum DAP39 ADDENDUM. This Diagnostics Assessment Report was commissioned by the NIHR HTA Programme as project number 16/30/05

Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III-IV follicular lymphoma

[Correction added after online publication 22-January-2010: Reference numbering in the results section has been updated] Methods

Setting The setting was primary care. The economic study was conducted in the USA.

NICE decisions on health care provisions in England

Study population The study population comprised a hypothetical cohort of poorly reversible COPD patients with a history of exacerbations.

Meta-Analysis. Zifei Liu. Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Summary Background 1. Comparative effectiveness of ramucirumab

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 25 May 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta391

YONDELIS (TRABECTEDIN) FOR THE TREATMENT OF SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA. RESPONSE TO EVIDENCE REVIEW GROUP QUERIES (15 th April 2009)

Health technology The study compared three strategies for diagnosing and treating obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS).

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 6 December 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta492

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 24 August 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta405

Faecal DNA testing compared with conventional colorectal cancer screening methods: a decision analysis Song K, Fendrick A M, Ladabaum U

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 April 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta442

Setting The setting was unclear. The economic study was conducted in Switzerland.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for celiac disease in the adult population Shamir R, Hernell O, Leshno M

Setting The setting was primary care. The economic study was carried out in Brazil, France, Germany and Italy.

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 25 January 2012 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta243

Economic modelling of brief advice on physical activity for adults in primary care. Submitted to PHIAC 24th August 2012

Outcomes assessed in the review The outcomes assessed in the review and used as model inputs were the incident rates of:

Appendix I: Imperial College LTBI treatment report

Setting The setting was secondary care. The economic study was carried out in Australia.

Version No. 7 Date: July Please send comments or suggestions on this glossary to

The cost-effectiveness of a new statin (rosuvastatin) in the UK NHS Palmer S J, Brady A J, Ratcliffe A E

Assessment of cost-effectiveness of universal hepatitis B immunization in a low-income country with intermediate endemicity using a Markov model

Cost-effectiveness of measuring fractional flow reserve to guide coronary interventions Fearon W F, Yeung A C, Lee D P, Yock P G, Heidenreich P A

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 June 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta448

Health technology The use of oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza in otherwise healthy children.

Cost-effectiveness of a community anti-smoking campaign targeted at a high risk group in London Stevens W, Thorogood M, Kayikki S

Study population The study population comprised a hypothetical cohort of patients with confirmed reflux oesophagitis.

Cost-effectiveness of Daratumumab (Darzalex ) for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Vaccine 26S (2008) F3 F15. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect. Vaccine. journal homepage:

Critical appraisal of pharmacoeconomic studies comparing TNF-α antagonists for rheumatoid arthritis treatment

Dronedarone for the treatment of non-permanent atrial fibrillation

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 16 December 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta369

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 31 January 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta501

Cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in high-risk children in Argentina Dayan G H, Nguyen V H, Debbag R, Gomez R, Wood S C

Botulinum toxin type A for the prevention of headaches in adults with chronic migraine

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 7 February 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta505

1 Executive summary. Background

Table S1- PRISMA 2009 Checklist

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair Michaels J A, Drury D, Thomas S M

Bisphosphonates for preventing osteoporotic fragility fracture

Alternative management strategies for patients with suspected peptic ulcer disease Fendrick M A, Chernew M E, Hirth R A, Bloom B S

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 22 September 2010 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta200

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE. Technology appraisals. Patient access scheme submission template

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 22 May 2013 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta283

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 1 November 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta483

Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment techniques: a cost-effectiveness analysis Ozanne E M, Esserman L J

Title: Tiotropium's cost-effectiveness for the treatment of COPD: a cost-utility analysis under real-world conditions.

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 23 September 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta355

Study population The study population comprised the general population of Senegal inhabitants aged 1 to 30 years.

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 14 December 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta420

4. Aflibercept showed significant improvement in overall survival (OS), the primary

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 15 March 2012 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta249

Background Comparative effectiveness of nivolumab

Setting The setting was tertiary care. The economic study was conducted in Bangkok, Thailand.

No 32 September

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 October 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta359

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE. Overview

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 June 2013 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta288

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)

Cost-effectiveness ratios are commonly used to

Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Part review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 75 and 106

Lead team presentation Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (STA)

Setting The setting was secondary care. The study was carried out in the UK, with emphasis on Scottish data.

Setting The setting was secondary care. The economic study was conducted in the USA.

Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Methodological Guidelines

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 24 August 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta401

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 23 March 2011 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta218

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 7 March 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta509

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 6 December 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta493

Cost effectiveness of

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 15 December 2010 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta211

A CASE STUDY OF VALUE OF INFORMATION

Pharmacoeconomics: from Policy to Science. Olivia Wu, PhD Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment

An economic evaluation of a school-based sexually transmitted disease screening program Wang L Y, Burstein G R, Cohen D A

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of anti-tnfs for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis PLEASE DO NOT REPRODUCE

Cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab (Nucala ) as an add-on treatment for severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adult patients.

Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

Cost-effectiveness of Obinutuzumab (Gazyvaro ) for the First Line Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 March 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta516

Transcription:

Exploring uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis Francis Ruiz NICE International (acknowledgements to: Benjarin Santatiwongchai of HITAP) NICE International and HITAP copyright 2013

Why uncertainty is important for decisions? All decisions are associated with a risk that a more optimal course of action could have been achieved All economic evaluations contain uncertainty Characterising uncertainty will enable decision makers to have the option of an informed choice to reduce uncertainty, e.g. delaying implementation 2

Reasons for uncertainty over cost effectiveness results Uncertainty over treatment effects confidence intervals around estimates from trials/meta-analysis uncertainty due to queries over internal/external validity of trials? Uncertainty over other data inputs baseline risks, costs, utilities,... may be quantitative estimates of sampling error (CIs) but may also need to estimate ranges more informally Assumptions and model structure cannot be represented as confidence interval may test impact of changing assumptions in sensitivity analysis

Uncertainty versus variability Variability ( first-order uncertainty) Natural variation among individuals in their response to treatment and the costs they incur Reflected in standard deviations in a mean value Further evidence will not reduce this variation NOTE heterogeneity differences between patients that can (in part) be explained, e.g. age, sex Uncertainty Cannot know for certain what the expected (mean) costs and effects of a particular treatment will be when provided for a given population Further evidence can reduce this uncertainty providing more precise estimates of these mean costs and health effects (e.g. bigger studies with reduce CI and SE for estimated parameters)

Type of uncertainty Methodological uncertainty Methodological disagreement among analysts e.g. rate of discounting, method for costing Modelling uncertainty The uncertainty due to the model structure relating to the function form of the model Parameter uncertainty The uncertainty in parameter inputs to a study that includes sampling variation Generalizability/Transferability Using economic evaluation results conducted in one setting in other settings 5

Methodological uncertainty the role of the Reference Case Debate about the most appropriate methods to use for some aspects of health technology assessment. Can relate to choices that are essentially value judgements; for example, whose preferences to use for valuation of health outcomes. It also includes methodological choices that relate to more technical aspects of an analysis; for example, the most appropriate approach to measuring health-related quality of life (HRQL). A reference case specifies the methods considered by the decision making body to be the most appropriate for its purpose An RF facilitates a consistent approach, but does not necessarily exclude non-rf analyses, especially if strict adherence to the RF is not possible. Issues implementing changes over time; disagreement

Handling parameter uncertainty Sensitivity analysis: model results that reflect different possible values for model inputs Type of sensitivity analysis Deterministic: One-way, multi-way, extreme, threshold Probabilistic 7

One-way sensitivity analysis One parameter in the estimation model is set to vary across a reasonable range one at a time. The resulted cost, effectiveness, and ICER are determined how sensitive they are with respect to the varying range. 8

Extreme The cost and effectiveness of the intervention of interest are evaluated given the model parameters that are based on the best case vs the worst case scenarios and yield the extreme value of ICER. 9

Threshold Spiegel et al. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 795-806. The critical value(s) of a parameter or parameters central to the decision are identified. 10

Problem with deterministic result presentation Ranges Interaction Difficult / complex Interpretation Summary statement 11

Probability sensitivity analysis Take all parameter uncertainty into account Require a knowledge on mathematical modelling in programmes such as Microsoft Excel 12

Probability Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) 13

Incremental costs Simulation results from probabilistic model 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 mean ICER 10,000 0-10,000-20,000-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Incremental life-years 14

Uncertainty on the CE plane: using the decision rule Incremental costs 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 R C = 100,000/LY R C = 50,000/LY R C = /LY R C = 30,000/LY R C = 15,000/LY R C = 5,000/LY R C = 0/LY - 10,000-20,000-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Source: Briggs A (2004) I ncrement al life-years 15

0.05 R C = 0/LY Source: Briggs A (2004) 16

0.5 R C = 15,000/LY Source: Briggs A (2004) 17

0.87 R C = 50,000/LY Source: Briggs A (2004) 18

0.92 R C = /LY Source: Briggs A (2004) 19

The need for multiple types of sensitivity analysis PSA is not the only sensitivity analysis that should used Model structure and choice of data are also subject to uncertainty, which should be identified and formally examined using sensitivity analysis. This can be done by re-running analysis using alternative model assumptions or source of data (e.g. excluding a study from a meta-analysis) where there's doubt. Simple deterministic analysis can also help to validate models - does it behave as expected? Can also help to develop the decision makers understanding of and confidence in the model.

Generalisability / transferability The extent to which the results of a study, as they apply to a particular patient population and/or a specific context, hold true for another population and/or in a different context Briggs and Gray 1999: http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon302.pdf Clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness Drummond et al 2009 Generalisability economic evaluations applied with no adjustment Transferability adapted to apply in other settings Trial populations; Settings, etc Decision makers / analysts may need to consider data from alternative settings How to interpret and use?

Dealing with generalisability/ transferability Checklists e.g. include / exclude studies Qualitative assessment Quantitative approaches, e.g. Regression analyses (if patient level data available) Subgroup analysis Example: Briggs et al 2006 (cited in Drummond et al 2009) Cost-effectiveness of asthma control: an economic appraisal of the GOAL study used data from a multinational trial on baseline risks, relative treatment effects, utility, and resource use data Regression analysis using data from the whole trial to estimate costs for just for United Kingdom Assumed clinical / utility estimates generalisable across jurisdictions

Thankyou! 23