Value of an economic analysis on diagnostic tests conducted for the Pneumonia NICE Clinical Guideline

Similar documents
Basic Economic Analysis. David Epstein, Centre for Health Economics, York

Marc Baguelin 1,2. 1 Public Health England 2 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

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

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 January 2011 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta213

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

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM AND UNIVERSITY OF YORK HEALTH ECONOMICS CONSORTIUM (NICE EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR) Health economic report on piloted indicator

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

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 25 January 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta431

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

NICE Guidelines for HTA Issues of Controversy

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM AND UNIVERSITY OF YORK HEALTH ECONOMICS CONSORTIUM (NICE EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR) Health economic report on piloted indicator

Diagnosis of Pneumococcal Disease

Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold

Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold

Professor Karl Claxton, Centre for Health Economics, University of York

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

Health Economics 101: PPI prescriptions in the Emergency Room

Supplementary appendix

To develop guidelines for the use of appropriate antibiotics for adult patients with CAP and guidance on IV to PO conversion.

Epidemiology and Etiology of Community-Acquired Pneumonia 761 Lionel A. Mandell

Oseltamivir, amantadine (review) and zanamivir for the prophylaxis of influenza

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 25 February 2009 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta168

Antimicrobial Stewardship in Community Acquired Pneumonia

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 November 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta547

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 24 September 2008 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta158

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 30 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta472

Priority setting at a national level NICE - England. Gillian Leng Deputy Chief Executive, NICE September 2016

Appendix 18d: Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for panic disorder GRADE evidence profiles

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

National COPD Audit Programme

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

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

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 16 May 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta520

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 November 2014 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta325

Using Health Economics to Inform the Development of Medical Devices. Matthew Allsop MATCH / BITECIC

The cost of cancer treatment

NICE AAA Guidelines. Professor Andrew W. Bradbury

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

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

Executive Summary: A systematic review of literature evaluating eccentric viewing and steady eye training

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

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

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 23 February 2011 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta216

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 9 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta465

Can the UK afford ablation for persistent AF? cost efficacy analysis. Dr Derick Todd Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 30 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta471

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 24 January 2018 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta499

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 August 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta352

An Introduction to Costeffectiveness

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 September 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta411

Community Acquired Pneumonia. Abdullah Alharbi, MD, FCCP

Making Economic Evaluation Fit for Purpose to Guide Resource Allocation Decisions

Using pilot economic models to support grant applications for clinical trials:

Single Technology Appraisal (STA) Tadalafil for the treatment of symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Management of incidental pituitary microadenomas: a cost-effectiveness analysis King J T, Justice A C, Aron D C

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 23 November 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta418

Bendamustine for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 April 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta440

Type of intervention Other: transplantation. Economic study type Cost-utility analysis.

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 6 September 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta476

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

Clinical Microbiology CLS 2019 Clinical Microbiology Laboratory Scheme Application Form

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 July 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta459

Source of effectiveness data The effectiveness data were derived from a review or synthesis of completed studies.

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

TIPI di ANALISI ECONOMICHE Patrizia Berto LASER Analytica - Milano

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

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 October 2009 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta183

Appendix I: Imperial College LTBI treatment report

In keeping with the Scottish Diabetes Group criteria, use should be restricted to those who:

Guidelines/Guidance/CAP/ Hospitalized Child. PHM Boot Camp 2014 Jay Tureen, MD June 19, 2014

Comments from AstraZeneca UK Ltd

MRSA The Facts. Staphylococcus aureus MRSA. Staphylococcus aureus, often referred to simply as "staph," What is Staphylococcus aureus?

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

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 27 June 2012 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta260

Slides for Committee CIC redacted

Evaluation of the Oxoid Xpect Legionella test kit for Detection of Legionella

Community acquired pneumonia due to Legionella pneumophila in a tertiary care hospital

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 26 October 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta416

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

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

Single Technology Appraisal (STA) Tildrakizumab for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 4 October 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta479

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 8 November 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta487

Annual Epidemiological Report

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

Pancreatic Cancer in adults:

1 Executive summary. Background

Tolvaptan for treating autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Roflumilast for the management of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Roflumilast for the management of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Technology appraisal guidance Published: 28 September 2016 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta406

Charles Krasner, M.D. University of NV, Reno School of Medicine Sierra NV Veterans Affairs Medical Center

NHSScotland is required to consider the Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) advice.

Nivolumab for adjuvant treatment of resected stage III and IV melanoma [ID1316] STA Lead team presentation: Cost Effectiveness Part 1

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

Cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial resistance point-of-care testing for optimising the treatment of gonorrhoea

Issues regarding non-inferiority within the anti-bacterials area. Jon Armstrong, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Transcription:

Value of an economic analysis on diagnostic tests conducted for the Pneumonia NICE Clinical Guideline Presenter: Elisabetta Fenu, Health Economics Lead Co-author: Chris Kiff National Clinical Guideline Centre Royal College of Physicians, London, UK

Background National Clinical Guideline Centre (NCGC) based at the Royal College of Physicians clinical practice guidelines for England evidence-based National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guideline Committee has to consider both clinical and cost effectiveness evidence Recommendations are often based on original economic modelling

To present Aims our experience in the development of an economic model on microbiological tests for the Pneumonia Guideline (CG191) illustrate how an economic model was used alongside clinical evidence to make a more informed recommendation for the guideline.

Methods - question in the Clinical Guideline Population: patients diagnosed with pneumonia. Initially everyone is treated with empirical antibiotic therapy (based on likely pathogens) Interventions: microbiological tests to identify the correct pathogen which is causing pneumonia. antibiotic treatment can be optimised or changed if pathogen not covered by empirical treatment (targeted treatment) potential benefits of minimising side effects and resistance of pathogens in the wider population A systematic review was conducted to assess the clinical effectiveness of microbiological tests to guide antibiotic therapy compared with no test (empirical treatment ) The clinical evidence was deemed inconclusive: very low quality and could not establish which, if any, test would be useful.

Methods model question Different tests detect different pathogens An economic model was conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of testing strategies S. H. L. Atypical no testing pneumonia (clinical judgement) influenza S. aureus pneumophila pathogens Blood culture Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 4 single tests (blood culture, sputum culture, urinary pneumococcal antigen, urinary legionella antigen) combinations of some tests (conducted at the same time) Routine sputum culture Yes Yes Yes No No Yes all tests (conducted at the same time) Performing more tests could: Urinary pneumococcal antigen Yes No No No No No lead to more accurate detection of the causing pathogen the right targeted treatment is provided; increase costs: does performing more tests represent an overuse of resources? Or does performing fewer/no tests represent an underuse of resources? Urinary legionella antigen No No No Yes No No Gramnegative pathogens

Methods model data and structure The following data were inputted into the model: Prevalence of pathogens in the UK Accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of each test at detecting specific pathogens Sensitivity: The probability that a test will be positive in a patient who has the disease Specificity: The probability that a test will be negative in a patient who does not have the disease

Methods model data and structure The following data were inputted into the model: Prevalence of pathogens in the UK Accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of each test at detecting specific pathogens Initially everyone receives empirical treatment According to accuracy of tests a pathogen is detected Targeted antibiotic treatment for detected pathogen is assigned (based on the susceptibility of pathogens to different antibiotics)

Costs Methods costs and health effects Cost of tests performed Cost of antibiotic treatment prescribed Cost of additional 3 days of hospital stay if pathogen was resistant to the antibiotic treatment assigned Effects Mortality at 30 days Pathogen-specific For some pathogens reduced if targeted treatment provided This was combined with a quality of life (QoL) value EQ5D - for people with pneumonia to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QALYs are the combination of QoL estimates with survival such that: 1 year in full health (QoL =1) = 1 QALY 2 years in half health (QoL = 0.5) = 1 QALY

Methods assessing cost-effectiveness 1. Calculate mean costs and QALYs for all strategies 2. Calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between strategies ICER = cost strategy A cost strategy B QALYs strategy A QALYs strategy B 3. Compare the ICER to the cost-effectiveness threshold ( 20,000 per QALY used in NICE Clinical Guidelines) selecting the option with the highest benefits and the ICER below the threshold.

Results base case analysis Threshold of 20,000 per QALY gained ICER: 5,135/QALY

Limits The Guideline Committee was aware that the model may have underestimated the health benefits of targeted treatment, and therefore the benefits of conducting all tests, such as: Decrease in mortality for all pathogens (including for those detected by the antigen tests) Decrease in antibiotic resistance across the whole population Decrease in adverse events from antibiotic treatment (not incorporated in the model) Due to lack of data on these areas.

Results - sensitivity analysis Two sensitivity analyses to address the limitations: a) We quantified the QALY gain associated with any Sensitivity analyses targeted treatment assigned to patients in the model allow us to re-run the which made the all tests strategy cost effective. analysis using If targeted treatment was able to generate at least 0.0134 different values to additional QALYs, all tests in combination would be see how robust the the most cost-effective strategy. conclusions are from b) In the base case same mortality with or without targeted the model. treatment for the two pathogens detected by the antigen tests; when mortality with targeted treatment varied all tests was cost effective if this was: for L. pneumophila: 10.4% (vs 11% non-targeted) for S. pneumoniae: 13.8% (vs 14% non-targeted) The Committee agreed there was still uncertainty over the cost effectiveness of all tests but they could be considered.

Bottom line Despite the limitations, this model was able to inform the guideline recommendations, while a simple review of accuracy studies would not have been enough to identify the optimal combination of tests. The recommendations had different strength based on the model uncertainty. For patients with moderate of high severity community acquired pneumonia: take blood and sputum cultures consider pneumococcal and legionella urinary antigen tests

Thank you! Any questions?