Search

Objectives: Faster regulatory approval processes often fail to achieve faster patient access. We seek an approach, using performance-based risk-sharing arrangements, to address uncertainty for payers regarding the relative effectiveness and value for money of products launched through accelerated approval schemes. One important reason for risk sharing is to resolve differences of opinion between innovators and payers about a technology's underlying value. To date, there has been no formal attempt to set out the circumstances in which risk sharing can address these differences., Methods: We use a value of information framework to understand what a performance-based risk-sharing arrangements can, in principle, add to a reimbursement scheme, separating payer perspectives on cost-effectiveness and the value of research from those of the innovator. We find 16 scenarios, developing 5 rules to analyze these 16 scenarios, identifying cases in which risk sharing adds value for both parties., Results: We find that risk sharing provides an improved solution in 9 out of 16 combinations of payer and innovator expectations about treatment outcome and the value of further research. Among our assumptions, who pays for research and scheme administration costs are key., Conclusions: Steps should be undertaken to make risk sharing more practical, ensuring that payers consider it an option. This requires additional costs to the health system falling on the innovator in an efficient way that aligns incentives for product development for global markets. Health systems benefits are earlier patient access to cost-effective treatments and payers with higher confidence of not wasting money. Innovators get greater returns while conducting research., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Willingness to pay (WTP) for an infertility treatment is the maximum amount of money a patient is willing to pay per treatment, or to achieve a live birth or pregnancy. Such thresholds are important to determine the cost effectiveness of a treatment. A systematic review was conducted to identify and explore the studies that attempt to ascertain WTP for infertility and compare them with the cost-effectiveness studies that claimed to use WTP thresholds. For comparison, all the costs were converted and inflated to 2021 euros. The results demonstrated that there were no standard outcomes or WTP thresholds for an outcome/treatment, and the methodologies used vary. Cost-effectiveness studies either used the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to imply a WTP threshold, or used thresholds that were previously accepted for a quality-adjusted life year outcome converted, inappropriately, to an infertility outcome. There is a need for further research by health economists to develop a consensus for the meaningful assessment of WTP for ART., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest KU Leuven, the employer of JL, has received hourly compensation for JL's earlier participation in organized workshops on the economic evaluation of vaccines (by Pfizer and MSD) and fertility treatment (by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). EF, SP, AO, and AE are employees of OPEN Health who received funding from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany for conducting the work that underpins this manuscript. TDH is an employee of Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. VC is an employee of EMD Serono, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. GH is an employee of The Healthcare Business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Parametric models are routinely used to estimate the benefit of cancer drugs beyond trial follow-up. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has challenged this paradigm, and emerging evidence suggests that more flexible survival models, which can better capture the shapes of complex hazard functions, might be needed for these interventions. Nevertheless, there is a need for an algorithm to help analysts decide whether flexible models are required and, if so, which should be chosen for testing. This position article has been produced to bridge this gap., Methods: A virtual advisory board comprising 7 international experts with in-depth knowledge of survival analysis and health technology assessment was held in summer 2021. The experts discussed 24 questions across 6 topics: the current survival model selection procedure, data maturity, heterogeneity of treatment effect, cure and mortality, external evidence, and additions to existing guidelines. Their responses culminated in an algorithm to inform selection of flexible survival models., Results: The algorithm consists of 8 steps and 4 questions. Key elements include the systematic identification of relevant external data, using clinical expert input at multiple points in the selection process, considering the future and the observed hazard functions, assessing the potential for long-term survivorship, and presenting results from all plausible models., Conclusions: This algorithm provides a systematic, evidence-based approach to justify the selection of survival extrapolation models for cancer immunotherapies. If followed, it should reduce the risk of selecting inappropriate models, partially addressing a key area of uncertainty in the economic evaluation of these agents., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The allocation of healthcare resources among competing priorities requires an assessment of the expected costs and health effects of investing resources in the activities and of the opportunity cost of the expenditure. To date, much effort has been devoted to assessing the expected costs and health effects, but there remains an important need to also reflect the consequences of uncertainty in resource allocation decisions and the value of further research to reduce uncertainty. Decision making with uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal, resulting in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to better inform resource decisions. This value can be quantified using value of information (VOI) analysis. This report from the ISPOR VOI Task Force describes methods for computing 4 VOI measures: the expected value of perfect information, expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI), expected value of sample information (EVSI), and expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). Several methods exist for computing EVPPI and EVSI, and this report provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate method based on the features of the decision problem. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing VOI analyses. The software needed to compute VOI is discussed, and areas for future research are highlighted., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Healthcare resource allocation decisions made under conditions of uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal. In a resource constrained system in which there is a fixed budget, these suboptimal decisions will result in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to make better resource allocation decisions. This value can be quantified using a value of information (VOI) analysis. This report, from the ISPOR VOI Task Force, introduces VOI analysis, defines key concepts and terminology, and outlines the role of VOI for supporting decision making, including the steps involved in undertaking and interpreting VOI analyses. The report is specifically aimed at those tasked with making decisions about the adoption of healthcare or the funding of healthcare research. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing the results of VOI analyses., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Payers are concerned that one-off "cures" bring great uncertainty with the consequential risk of incorrect adoption decisions, and significant budget impact from large one-off payments. Innovators worry about bias against "cures" in favor of repeat treatment, which is not in patients' interests. We find that even in the absence of a difference in uncertainty of outcomes, adverse pay-offs differ. The greater financial risk associated with a cure is related to the issue of treatment discontinuation, driven by irreversibility. This paper uses a stylized example to illustrate the need to separate three different elements of the issue: (i) one-off versus repeat or ongoing treatment, (ii) duration of treatment effect, and (iii) the potential role of financial arrangements or risk sharing to mitigate the financial risk to the payer. It concludes that: (i) prevalence and discontinuation issues mean that the impact on the payer of an incorrect decision is greater with a one-off treatment than a repeat therapy; (ii) with evidence collection this risk diminishes over time (a form of CED or OWR); and (iii) financial arrangements or risk sharing can eliminate differences for the payer as between one-off and repeat therapy. The impact of (iii) also addresses payer concerns about budget impact., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adults with intellectual disabilities have substantial health inequalities and poor access to health care. We assessed whether practice nurse-delivered health checks could improve the health of adults with intellectual disabilities compared with standard care., Methods: In this cluster-design, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included general practices in Scotland, UK. From June to December, 2011, we randomly assigned (1:1) these general practices to either health checks plus standard care (health-checks group), or standard care only (control group), and we recruited the patients from these practices. Randomisation was done with stratification by number of GPs per practice and number of registered patients with intellectual disabilities (<20 or ≥20). Two research assistants were masked to allocation, and undertook the review of 9 month medical records and interviews. Participants and carers were not masked. The intervention was one health check designed especially for people with intellectual disabilities delivered by a practice nurse. The objective was improvement in health and health care 9 months after randomisation, and the primary outcome was the incidence of newly detected health needs being met by this timepoint. Whether needs were met was established by the investigators being masked to group allocation. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN43324841., Findings: Between June 26 and Dec 20, 2011, we recruited 38 practices. 85 participants (from 16 practices) were randomly assigned to intervention and 67 (from 17 practices) to standard care; five of the identified practices did not supply any participants. 83 intervention and 66 standard care participants completed the trial. More newly detected health needs were met in the intervention group than in the control standard care group (median 1 [range 0-8], 76·4% met [SD 36·5] vs 2 [0-11], 72·6% met [35·4]; odds ratio [OR] 1·73 [95% CI 0·93-3·22], p=0·085), although this difference was not significant. Significantly more health monitoring needs were met in the intervention group than standard care (median 2 [0-20], 69·9% [SD 34·2] vs 2 [0-22], 56·8% [29·4], OR 2·38 [95% CI 1·31-4·32, p=0·0053]). The probability that health checks are cost effective was between 0·6 and 0·8, irrespective of the cost-effectiveness threshold level. Costs per patient were -£71·48 for health checks and -£20·56 for standard care. The difference (-£50·92) was not significant [95% CI -434 to 362]. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention., Interpretation: Health checks given by practice nurses to adults with intellectual disabilities produced health-care improvements that were more conducive to longer-term health than standard care given to this population. The intervention dominated standard care, being both cheaper and more effective. Health-check programmes might therefore be indicated for adults with intellectual disabilities., Funding: Scottish Government Change Fund, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Research and Development., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prevalence of male obesity is increasing but few men take part in weight loss programmes. We assessed the effect of a weight loss and healthy living programme on weight loss in football (soccer) fans., Methods: We did a two-group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial of 747 male football fans aged 35-65 years with a body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m(2) or higher from 13 Scottish professional football clubs. Participants were randomly assigned with SAS (version 9·2, block size 2-9) in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by club, to a weight loss programme delivered by community coaching staff in 12 sessions held every week. The intervention group started a weight loss programme within 3 weeks, and the comparison group were put on a 12 month waiting list. All participants received a weight management booklet. Primary outcome was mean difference in weight loss between groups at 12 months, expressed as absolute weight and a percentage of their baseline weight. Primary outcome assessment was masked. Analyses were based on intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN32677491., Findings: 374 men were allocated to the intervention group and 374 to the comparison group. 333 (89%) of the intervention group and 355 (95%) of the comparison group completed 12 month assessments. At 12 months the mean difference in weight loss between groups, adjusted for baseline weight and club, was 4·94 kg (95% CI 3·95-5·94) and percentage weight loss, similarly adjusted, was 4·36% (3·64-5·08), both in favour of the intervention (p<0·0001). Eight serious adverse events were reported, five in the intervention group (lost consciousness due to drugs for pre-existing angina, gallbladder removal, hospital admission with suspected heart attack, ruptured gut, and ruptured Achilles tendon) and three in the comparison group (transient ischaemic attack, and two deaths). Of these, two adverse events were reported as related to participation in the programme (gallbladder removal and ruptured Achilles tendon)., Interpretation: The FFIT programme can help a large proportion of men to lose a clinically important amount of weight; it offers one effective strategy to challenge male obesity., Funding: Scottish Government and The UK Football Pools funded delivery of the programme through a grant to the Scottish Premier League Trust. The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme funded the assessment (09/3010/06)., (Copyright © 2014 Hunt et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY-NC-ND. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A model's purpose is to inform medical decisions and health care resource allocation. Modelers employ quantitative methods to structure the clinical, epidemiological, and economic evidence base and gain qualitative insight to assist decision makers in making better decisions. From a policy perspective, the value of a model-based analysis lies not simply in its ability to generate a precise point estimate for a specific outcome but also in the systematic examination and responsible reporting of uncertainty surrounding this outcome and the ultimate decision being addressed. Different concepts relating to uncertainty in decision modeling are explored. Stochastic (first-order) uncertainty is distinguished from both parameter (second-order) uncertainty and from heterogeneity, with structural uncertainty relating to the model itself forming another level of uncertainty to consider. The article argues that the estimation of point estimates and uncertainty in parameters is part of a single process and explores the link between parameter uncertainty through to decision uncertainty and the relationship to value of information analysis. The article also makes extensive recommendations around the reporting of uncertainty, in terms of both deterministic sensitivity analysis techniques and probabilistic methods. Expected value of perfect information is argued to be the most appropriate presentational technique, alongside cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, for representing decision uncertainty from probabilistic analysis., (Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone versus spironolactone as an adjunctive therapy to standard care in patients with heart failure (HF) following a myocardial infarction (post-MI) from the perspective of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom., Methods: A systematic review was conducted, and a Bayesian meta-regression approach was used to establish the relative effectiveness of eplerenone and spironolactone by using evidence from randomized controlled trials. A decision analytic model was developed to assess the costs and consequences associated with the primary outcome of the trials over a lifetime time horizon., Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of eplerenone compared with that of standard care alone was £ 4457 and £ 7893 for each additional quality-adjusted life-year when 2-year and lifetime treatment duration was assumed, respectively. In both scenarios, spironolactone did not appear cost-effective compared with eplerenone. The results were sensitive to the higher relative effectiveness estimated for eplerenone compared with spironolactone from the meta-regression. When a class effect was assumed for the effect on mortality and hospitalizations, spironolactone emerged as the most cost-effective treatment., Conclusions: Eplerenone appears more cost-effective than spironolactone for the treatment of post-MI HF. These findings, however, remain subject to important uncertainties regarding the effects of treatment on major clinical events. An adequately powered, well-conducted randomized controlled trial that directly compares spironolactone and eplerenone may be required to provide more robust evidence on the optimal management of post-MI HF. Despite these uncertainties, the use of an aldosterone antagonist was consistently demonstrated to be a highly cost-effective strategy for the management of post-MI HF in the National Health Service., (Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involve cost-effectiveness evaluations rarely use health economic input when undertaking sample size calculations for the trial design; however, in studies undertaken with cost-effectiveness as the primary outcome, sample size calculations should be directly related to the cost-effectiveness result rather than to the effectiveness outcome alone. This paper reports on a case in which a clinical trial design sample size and power calculations were determined with regard to cost-effectiveness using the net monetary benefit (NMB) approach to demonstrate the feasibility of sample size calculation for cost-effectiveness in a real life setting. The proposed RCT of fetal fibronectin screening (fFN) for women with threatened pre-term labour is discussed, followed by the design of a preliminary model to inform the trial design calculation. The predictions from this pre-trial indicate potential cost-savings, but with a marginal detrimental impact on the effectiveness endpoint, neonatal morbidity. The NMB approach for cost-effectiveness is discussed and used to calculate the required sample sizes for different powers. The sample size calculations are then recalculated using a non-inferiority margin, to ensure that the NMB sample size for the trial was also sufficient to demonstrate non-inferiority for the effectiveness endpoint. Finally, a probabilistic analysis explored uncertainty in the model parameters and the impact on sample size. Considerations of economic assessments alongside clinical trials can and should be used to guide conventional trial design. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of such calculations, whilst simultaneously highlighting limitations and demonstrating the role for economic considerations to guide non-inferiority margins., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite its proven efficacy, infliximab is often considered to be an expensive treatment for patients with psoriatic arthritis., Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of infliximab among patients with active and progressive psoriatic arthritis., Methods: A decision analytic model was constructed to simulate disease progression in hypothetical cohorts of patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving infliximab maintenance treatment. The primary response measure was change in Health Assessment Questionnaire score from a baseline estimated from mixed treatment models drawn from published clinical trials. Palliative care, comprising nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, was used as a comparator. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years. The dose of infliximab was estimated for a range of 60 to 80 kg per patient body weight. The costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% for a period of 40 years. Uncertainty around the results was explored with probabilistic sensitivity analysis., Results: The mixed treatment comparison showed a significant reduction in Health Assessment Questionnaire score across all patients. The tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors were significantly superior to palliative care but comparable with one another. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab relative to palliative care were £17,327; £19,246; and £16,942 to £23,022, respectively, across all patients with psoriatic arthritis and £16,613; £18,170; and £15,788 to £21,736, respectively, in the subgroup with significant psoriasis., Conclusion: Infliximab represents a cost-effective treatment option well within the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence threshold relative to palliative care. In light of equivalent outcomes with other tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, its position in the treatment pathway is likely to be governed by treatment costs., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In a budget-constrained health-care system, decisions about investing in strategies to promote implementation have to be made alongside decisions about health-care provision and research funding. Using a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach, an analytic framework has been developed to inform these separate but related decisions, establishing the expected value of both perfect information (EVPI) and perfect implementation (EVPIM). We applied this framework to inform decision-making about resource allocation to metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC) in the UK., Methods: Based on available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of all plausible treatments for mHRPC, we determined which treatment option(s) were cost-effective and explored the uncertainty surrounding this decision. Given the decision uncertainty and the variation in care provided by health-care professionals, we then determined the EVPI and EVPIM. Finally, we performed sensitivity analyses to explore the influence of alternative assumptions regarding various decision parameters on the efficiency of resource allocation., Results: Depending on the cost-effectiveness threshold (lambda), we identified mitoxantrone plus prednisone/prednisolone and docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone (3 weekly) as the optimal treatments for mHRPC. Given current clinical practice, there appears to be considerable scope for improving the efficiency of health-care provision: the EVPI (estimated to be over pound13 million) indicates that acquiring further information could be cost-effective; and the EVPIM (estimated to be over pound4 million) suggests that investing in strategies to implement the treatments regimens being identified as optimal is potentially worthwhile. Through sensitivity analyses, we found that the EVPI and EVPIM are mainly driven by lambda, the number of treatment options being considered, the current level of implementation, and the size of the eligible patient population., Conclusion: The application demonstrates that the framework provides a simple and useful analytic tool for decision-makers to address resource allocation problems between health-care provision, further research, and implementation efforts.

Objective: To demonstrate how the optimal decision and level of uncertainty associated with that decision, can be presented when assessing the cost-effectiveness of multiple options. To explore and explain potentially counterintuitive results that can arise when analyzing multiple options., Methods: A template was created, based on the assumption of multivariate normality, in order to replicate a previous analysis that compared the cost-effectiveness of multiple options. We used this template to explain some of the different shapes that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfection information (EVPI) may take, with changing correlation structure and variance between the multiple options., Results: We show that it is possible for 1) an option that is subject to extended dominance to have the highest probability of being cost-effective for some values of the cost-effectiveness threshold; 2) the most cost-effective (optimal) option to never have the highest probability of being cost-effective; and 3) the EVPI to increase when the probability of making the wrong decision decreases. Changing the correlation structure between multiple options did not change the presentation of results on the cost-effectiveness plane., Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness plane has limited use in representing the uncertainty surrounding multiple options as it cannot represent correlation between the options. CEACs can represent decision uncertainty, but should not be used to determine the optimal decision. Instead, the CEAF shows the decision uncertainty surrounding the optimal choice and this can be augmented by the EVPI to show the potential gains to further research.

Objectives: Losses to follow-up and administrative censoring can cloud the interpretation of trial-based economic evaluations. A number of investigators have examined the impact of different levels of adjustment for censoring, including nonadjustment, adjustment of effects only, and adjustment for both costs and effects. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research on the impact of censoring on decision-making. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of adjustment for censoring on the interpretation of cost-effectiveness results and expected value of perfect information (EVPI), using a trial-based analysis that compared rate- and rhythm-control treatments for persons with atrial fibrillation., Methods: Three different levels of adjustment for censoring were examined: no censoring of cost and effects, censoring of effects only, and censoring of both costs and effects. In each case, bootstrapping was used to estimate the uncertainty incosts and effects, and the EVPI was calculated to determine the potential worth of further research., Results: Censoring did not impact the adoption decision. Nevertheless, this was not the case for the decision uncertainty or the EVPI. For a threshold of $50,000 per life-year, the EVPI varied between $626,000 (partial censoring) to $117 million (full censoring) for the eligible US population., Conclusions: The level of adjustment for censoring in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses can impact on the decisions to fund a new technology and to devote resources for further research. Only when censoring is taken into account for both costs and effects are these decisions appropriately addressed.