Search

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is only one of several organisations internationally that uses economic evaluation as part of decision making regarding funding and pricing of new medical technologies. However, it can be argued that NICE has developed a more prominent international profile than most in their use of economics. After 20 years of operation, it is timely to assess the extent of NICE's achievements, including the economic evaluation methods it has used and its willingness to adapt these as new evaluative approaches emerge and when NICE faces particular policy challenges. This paper considers some of the important policy and contextual developments in the UK over the last 20 years and how these may have shaped NICE's approach to economic evaluation. It then assesses key areas of NICE methods, including perspective, defining benefits, modelling and uncertainty. The paper concludes that NICE has provided important support for the development of new methods, in particular through its role in identifying priorities for methods research funding and its sponsorship of the NICE Decision Support Unit. However, potentially important developments in methods in a number of important areas have yet to be formally included in NICE's methods guidance and this should be addressed in the Institute's 2019/2020 methods review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Our aim was to systematically review published evidence on the construct validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness of generic preference-based measures (PBMs) used in East and South-East Asia.Methods: This systematic review was guided by the COSMIN guideline. A literature search on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PubMed databases up to August 2019 was conducted for measurement properties validation papers of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index (HUI), Quality of Well-Being (QWB), 15-Dimensional (15D) and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQOL) in East and South-East Asian countries. Included papers were disaggregated into individual studies whose results and quality of design were rated separately. The population-specific measurement properties (construct validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness) of each PBM were assessed separately using relevant studies. The overall methodological quality of the studies used in each of the assessments was also rated.Results: A total of 79 papers containing 1504 studies were included in this systematic review. The methodological quality was 'very good' or 'adequate' for the majority of the construct validity studies (99%) and responsiveness studies (61%), but for only a small portion of the test-retest reliability studies (23%). EQ-5D was most widely assessed and was found to have 'sufficient' construct validity and responsiveness in many populations, while the SF-6D and EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) exhibited 'inconsistent' construct validity in some populations. Scarce evidence was available on HUI and QWB, but current evidence supported the use of HUI.Conclusions: This systematic review provides a summary of the quality of existing generic PBMs in Asian populations. The current evidence supports the use of EQ-5D as the preferred choice when a generic PBM is needed, and continuous testing of all PBMs in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is a lack of comprehensive cost information for cardiovascular events since 2013.Objective: A systematic review on the contemporary cost of cardiovascular events was therefore undertaken.Methods: Methods complied with those recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Studies were unrestricted by language, were from 2013 to 23 December 2017, and included cost-of-illness data in adults with the following cardiovascular conditions: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), heart failure (HF), unstable angina (UA), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Seven electronic databases were searched, namely Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE In-Process Citations and Daily Update (Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. The included studies reported data from a variety of years (sometimes prior to 2013), so costs were inflated and converted to $US, year 2018 values, for standardization.Results: After de-duplication, 29,945 titles and abstracts and then 403 full papers were screened; 82 studies (88 papers) were extracted. Year 1 average cost ranges were as follows: MI ($11,970 in Sweden to $61,864 in the USA), stroke ($10,162 in Spain to $46,162 in the USA), TIA ($6049 in Sweden to $25,306 in the USA), HF ($4456 in China to $49,427 in the USA), UA ($11,237 in Sweden to $31,860 in the USA), PCI ($17,923 in Italy to $45,533 in the USA), CABG ($17,972 in the UK to $76,279 in the USA). One Swedish study reported PAD costs in a format convertible to $US, 2018 values, with a mean annual cost of $15,565.Conclusions: There was considerable unexplained variation in contemporary costs for all major cardiovascular events. One emerging theme was that average costs in the USA were considerably higher than anywhere else. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Value of information (VOI) analysis often requires modeling to characterize and propagate uncertainty. In collaboration with a cancer clinical trial group, we integrated a VOI approach to assessing trial proposals.Objective: This paper aims to explore the impact of modeling choices on VOI results and to share lessons learned from the experience.Methods: After selecting two proposals (A: phase III, breast cancer; B: phase II, pancreatic cancer) for in-depth evaluations, we categorized key modeling choices relevant to trial decision makers (characterizing uncertainty of efficacy, evidence thresholds to change clinical practice, and sample size) and modelers (cycle length, survival distribution, simulation runs, and other choices). Using a $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold, we calculated the patient-level expected value of sample information (EVSI) for each proposal and examined whether each modeling choice led to relative change of more than 10% from the averaged base-case estimate. We separately analyzed the impact of the effective time horizon.Results: The base-case EVSI was $118,300 for Proposal A and $22,200 for Proposal B per patient. Characterizing uncertainty of efficacy was the most important choice in both proposals (e.g. Proposal A: $118,300 using historical data vs. $348,300 using expert survey), followed by the sample size and the choice of survival distribution. The assumed effective time horizon also had a substantial impact on the population-level EVSI.Conclusions: Modeling choices can have a substantial impact on VOI. Therefore, it is important for groups working to incorporate VOI into research prioritization to adhere to best practices, be clear in their reporting and justification for modeling choices, and to work closely with the relevant decision makers, with particular attention to modeling choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes recommendations for a minimum level of searching for data for key parameters in decision-analytic models of cost effectiveness and describes sources of evidence relevant to each parameter type. Key parameters are defined as treatment effects, adverse effects, costs, resource use, health state utility values (HSUVs) and baseline risk of events. The recommended minimum requirement for treatment effects is comprehensive searching according to available methodological guidance. For other parameter types, the minimum is the searching of one bibliographic database plus, where appropriate, specialist sources and non-research-based and non-standard format sources. The recommendations draw on the search methods literature and on existing analyses of how evidence is used to support decision-analytic models. They take account of the range of research and non-research-based sources of evidence used in cost-effectiveness models and of the need for efficient searching. Consideration is given to what constitutes best evidence for the different parameter types in terms of design and scientific quality and to making transparent the judgments that underpin the selection of evidence from the options available. Methodological issues are discussed, including the differences between decision-analytic models of cost effectiveness and systematic reviews when searching and selecting evidence and comprehensive versus sufficient searching. Areas are highlighted where further methodological research is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has emerged as a likely alternative to address shortcomings in health technology assessment (HTA) by offering a more holistic perspective to value assessment and acting as an alternative priority setting tool. In this paper, we argue that MCDA needs to subscribe to robust methodological processes related to the selection of objectives, criteria and attributes in order to be meaningful in the context of healthcare decision making and fulfil its role in value-based assessment (VBA). We propose a methodological process, based on multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) methods comprising five distinct phases, outline the stages involved in each phase and discuss their relevance in the HTA process. Importantly, criteria and attributes need to satisfy a set of desired properties, otherwise the outcome of the analysis can produce spurious results and misleading recommendations. Assuming the methodological process we propose is adhered to, the application of MCDA presents three very distinct advantages to decision makers in the context of HTA and VBA: first, it acts as an instrument for eliciting preferences on the performance of alternative options across a wider set of explicit criteria, leading to a more complete assessment of value; second, it allows the elicitation of preferences across the criteria themselves to reflect differences in their relative importance; and, third, the entire process of preference elicitation can be informed by direct stakeholder engagement, and can therefore reflect their own preferences. All features are fully transparent and facilitate decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the company that makes obinutuzumab (Roche Products Limited) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with chemotherapy, with or without obinutuzumab as maintenance therapy for adult patients with untreated, advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) in the UK. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission, the ERG review, and NICE's subsequent decisions. The clinical evidence was derived from two phase III, company-sponsored, randomised, open-label studies. Most evidence on obinutuzumab was based on the GALLIUM trial that compared obinutuzumab in combination with chemotherapy as induction followed by obinutuzumab maintenance monotherapy with rituximab in combination with chemotherapy as induction followed by rituximab maintenance monotherapy in previously untreated patients with FL (grades 1-3a). Long-term clinical evidence was based on the PRIMA trial, studying the benefit of two years of rituximab maintenance after first-line treatment in patients with FL. The cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company relied on a partitioned survival cost-utility model, implemented in Microsoft® Excel. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) presented in the company submission was <£20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Although the ERG concluded that the economic model met the NICE reference case to a reasonable extent, some errors were identified and several assumptions made by the company were challenged. A new base-case scenario produced by the ERG suggested an ICER that was higher than the company base case, but still below £30,000 per QALY gained. However, some ERG scenario analyses were close to or even above the threshold. This was the case in particular for assuming a treatment effect that did not extend beyond trial follow-up. These results led to an initial negative recommendation by the appraisal committee. Subsequently, the company submitted a revised base case focusing on patients at intermediate or high risk of premature mortality. Simultaneously, a further price discount for obinutuzumab was granted. In addition to the company's revised base case, the ERG suggested a restriction of the treatment effect to 5 years and implemented biosimilar uptake and cheaper prices for rituximab. All of these adjustments did not exceed £30,000 per QALY gained and therefore the use of obinutuzumab for patients with advanced FL and a Follicular Lymphoma International Predictive Index (FLIPI) score of two or more could be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Teva, the company manufacturing arsenic trioxide (ATO; tradename Trisenox®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ATO for untreated and relapsed or refractory acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company submission (CS), the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness evidence in the CS, key methodological considerations and the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee (AC). The CS presented three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two of these were trials in newly diagnosed APL (APL0406 and AML17) and the third trial was in patients with relapsed APL. Results from APL0406 showed that more people having AATO [ATO plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA)] were alive at 50 months compared with people having AIDA (ATRA in combination with idarubicin) (99% vs. 93%; p = 0.007). There was also a statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of relapse with AATO compared with AIDA at 50 months (2% vs. 14%; p = 0.001). At 4 years, results from AML17 showed a significant difference in event-free survival (91% vs. 70%; p = 0.002) favouring AATO but not in overall survival (93% vs. 89%; p = 0.250). The only trial presented for relapsed/refractory patients compared AATO with ATO, which was not a relevant comparison according to the NICE scope. The AC concluded that AATO was effective for untreated APL while for relapsed or refractory APL the effectiveness of ATO was considered uncertain and the long-term safety remains unexplored. In the CS base-case, AATO was less expensive (£31,088 saved) and more effective (2.546 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained) than AIDA and thus the dominating strategy for newly diagnosed low- to intermediate-risk APL. However, the ERG's critical assessment highlighted a number of concerns, including deviations from the NICE reference case and a lack of detailed description and justification of parameters and assumptions related to (the extrapolation of) treatment effectiveness. However, it was reassuring that AATO for untreated APL remained dominant in the ERG base-case, and that the worst-case scenario produced by the ERG resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £21,622. The AC concluded that although there was uncertainty in the model, it could recommend ATO for both untreated and relapsed or refractory APL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company's submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an 'anchor-based' analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company's model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company's analysis; the ERG's preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as part of the institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process, invited the manufacturer of pomalidomide (POM; Imnovid®, Celgene) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after at least two regimens including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BOR). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR) and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this submission. The ERG reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses in order to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG assessment, and NICE's subsequent decisions. The company conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing POM with comparators outlined in the NICE scope: panobinostat with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PANO + BOR + DEX), bendamustine with thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) and conventional chemotherapy (CC). The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from MM-003, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing POM + LoDEX with high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; used as a proxy for CC). Additional data from other studies were also used as nonrandomized observational data sources for the indirect treatment comparison of POM + LoDEX with BTD and PANO + BOR + DEX. Covariate or treatment switching adjustment methods were used for each comparison. The model developed in Microsoft® Excel 2010 using a semi-Markov partitioned survival structure, submitted in the original submission to NICE for TA338, was adapted for the present assessment of the cost effectiveness of POM + LoDEX. Updated evidence from the clinical-effectiveness part was used for the survival modelling of progression-free survival and overall survival. For POM + LoDEX, the patient access scheme (PAS) discount was applied to the POM price. Three separate comparisons were conducted for each comparator, each comparison using a different dataset and adjustment methods. The ERG identified and corrected some errors, and the corrected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for POM + LoDEX versus each comparator were presented: approximately £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus BTD, savings of approximately £143,000 per QALY lost versus PANO + BOR + DEX, and approximately £49,000 per QALY gained versus CC. The ERG also conducted full incremental analyses, which revealed that CC, POM + LoDEX and PANO + BOR + DEX were on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The committee's decision on the technology under analysis deemed that POM + LoDEX should be recommended as an option for treating multiple myeloma in adults at third or subsequent relapse of treatments including both LEN and BOR, contingent on the company providing POM with the discount agreed in the PAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ramucirumab (Cyramza®, Eli Lilly and Company) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug administered alone (monotherapy) or with paclitaxel (combination therapy) for treating adults with advanced gastric cancer or gastro-oesophageal junction (GC/GOJ) adenocarcinoma that were previously treated with chemotherapy, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission, the ERG review, and NICE's subsequent decisions. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab monotherapy (RAM), compared with best supportive care (BSC), was based on data from the REGARD trial. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab combination therapy (RAM + PAC), compared with paclitaxel monotherapy (PAC), was based on data from the RAINBOW trial. In addition, the company undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare RAM + PAC with BSC and docetaxel. Cost-effectiveness evidence of monotherapy and combination therapy relied on partitioned survival, cost-utility models. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the company was £188,640 (vs BSC) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for monotherapy and £118,209 (vs BSC) per QALY gained for combination therapy. The ERG assessment indicated that the modelling structure represented the course of the disease; however, a few errors were identified and some of the input parameters were challenged. The ERG provided a new base case, with ICERs (vs BSC) of £188,100 (monotherapy) per QALY gained and £129,400 (combination therapy) per QALY gained and conducted additional exploratory analyses. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC), considered the company's decision problem was in line with the NICE scope, with the exception of the choice of comparators for the combination therapy model. The most plausible ICER for ramucirumab monotherapy compared with BSC was £188,100 per QALY gained. The Committee considered that the ERG's exploratory analysis in which RAM + PAC was compared with PAC by using the direct head-to-head data (including utilities) from the RAINBOW trial, provided the most plausible ICER (i.e. £408,200 per QALY gained) for ramucirumab combination therapy. The Committee concluded that end-of-life considerations cannot be applied for either case, since neither failed to offer an extension to life of at least 3 months. The company did not submit a patient access scheme (PAS). After consideration of the evidence, the Committee concluded that ramucirumab alone or with paclitaxel could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources for treating advanced GC/GOJ patients that were previously treated with chemotherapy, and therefore its use could not be recommended. We might wonder if a complete STA process is necessary for treatments without a PAS, which are, according to the company's submission, already associated with ICERs far above the currently accepted threshold in all (base-case, sensitivity and scenario) analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the growing use of decision analytic modelling in cost-effectiveness analysis, there is a relatively small literature on what constitutes good practice in decision analysis. The aim of this paper is to consider the concept of ‘validity’ and ‘quality’ in this area of evaluation, and to suggest a framework by which quality can be demonstrated on the part of the analyst and assessed by the reviewer and user. The paper begins by considering the purpose of cost-effectiveness models and argues that the their role is to identify optimum treatment decisions in the context of uncertainty about future states of the world. The issue of whether such models can be defined as ‘scientific’ is considered. The notion that decision analysis undertaken at time t can only be considered scientific if its outputs closely predict the results of a trial undertaken at time t+1 is rejected as this ignores the need to make decisions on the basis of currently available evidence. Rather, the scientific characteristic of decision models is based on the fact that, in principle at least, such analyses can be falsified by comparison of two states of the world, one where resource allocation decisions are based on formal decision analysis and the other where such decisions are not. This section of the paper also rejects the idea of exact codification of scientific method in general, and of decision analysis in particular, as this risks rejecting potentially valuable models, may discourage the development of novel methods and can distort research priorities. However, the paper argues that it is both possible and necessary to develop a framework for assessing quality in decision models. Building on earlier work, various dimensions of quality in decision modelling are considered: model structure (disease states, options, time horizon and cycle length); data (identification, incorporation, handling uncertainty); and consistency (internal and external). Within this taxonomy a (nonexhaustive) list of questions about quality is suggested which are illustrated by their application to a specific published model. The paper argues that such a framework can never be prescriptive about every aspect of decision modelling. Rather, it should encourage the analyst to provide an explicit and comprehensive justification of their methods, and allow the user of the model to make an informed judgment about the relevance, coherence and usefulness of the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper itemizes the current and developing roles of modelling in health economic evaluation and discusses its value in each role. We begin by noting the emptiness of the dichotomy that some commentators have sought to create between modelling and controlled trials as mechanisms for informing decisions. Both are necessary parts of the armoury. Recent literature discussions are examined and the accelerating prevalence of modelling is reported. The identified roles include: extrapolating outcomes to the longer term; adjusting for prognostic factors in trials; translating from intermediate to final outcomes; extending analysis to the relevant comparators; generalizing from specific trial populations to the full target group for an intervention and to other settings and countries; systematic sensitivity analyses; and the use of modelling for the design and prioritization of future trials. Roles are illustrated with 20 recent examples, mostly from within our own work analysing new or contentious interventions for the Trent Development and Evaluation Committee, which is planned to be incorporated into the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Each role discussed has been essential at some point in this policy-making forum. Finally, the importance of quality assurance, critical review and validity testing is reiterated and there are some observations on processes to ensure probity and quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of recent work has identified several problems with economic evaluations undertaken alongside controlled trials that can have potentially serious impacts on the ability of decision makers to draw valid conclusions. At the same time, the use of cost-effectiveness models has been drawn into question, due to the alleged arbitrary nature of their construction. This has led researchers to try and identify ways of improving the quality of cost-effectiveness models through identifying 'best practice', producing guidelines for peer review and identifying tests of validity. This paper investigates the issue of testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models or, perhaps more appropriately, whether it is possible to objectively measure the quality of a cost-effectiveness model. A review of the literature shows that there is much confusion over the different aspects of modelling that should be assessed in respect to model quality, and how this should be done. We develop a framework for assessing model quality in terms of: (i) the structure of the model; (ii) the inputs of the model; (iii) the results of the model; and (iv) the value of the model to the decision maker. Quality assessment is investigated within this framework, and it is argued that it is doubtful that a set of objective tests of validity will ever be produced, or indeed that such an approach would be desirable. The lack of any clearly definable and objective tests of validity means that the other parts of the evaluation process need to be given greater emphasis. Quality assurance forms a small part of a broader process and is best implemented in the form of good practice guidelines. A set of key guidelines are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Costs and utilities are key inputs into any cost-effectiveness analysis. Their estimates are typically derived from individual patient-level data collected as part of clinical studies the follow-up duration of which is often too short to allow a robust quantification of the likely costs and benefits a technology will yield over the patient's entire lifetime. In the absence of long-term data, some form of temporal extrapolation-to project short-term evidence over a longer time horizon-is required. Temporal extrapolation inevitably involves assumptions regarding the behaviour of the quantities of interest beyond the time horizon supported by the clinical evidence. Unfortunately, the implications for decisions made on the basis of evidence derived following this practice and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the validity of any assumptions made are often not fully appreciated. The issue is compounded by the absence of methodological guidance concerning the extrapolation of non-time-to-event outcomes such as costs and utilities. This paper considers current approaches to predict long-term costs and utilities, highlights some of the challenges with the existing methods, and provides recommendations for future applications. It finds that, typically, economic evaluation models employ a simplistic approach to temporal extrapolation of costs and utilities. For instance, their parameters (e.g. mean) are typically assumed to be homogeneous with respect to both time and patients' characteristics. Furthermore, costs and utilities have often been modelled to follow the dynamics of the associated time-to-event outcomes. However, cost and utility estimates may be more nuanced, and it is important to ensure extrapolation is carried out appropriately for these parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early health technology assessment is increasingly being used to support health economic evidence development during early stages of clinical research. Such early models can be used to inform research and development about the design and management of new medical technologies to mitigate the risks, perceived by industry and the public sector, associated with market access and reimbursement. Over the past 25 years it has been suggested that health economic evaluation in the early stages may benefit the development and diffusion of medical products. Early health technology assessment has been suggested in the context of iterative economic evaluation alongside phase I and II clinical research to inform clinical trial design, market access, and pricing. In addition, performing early health technology assessment was also proposed at an even earlier stage for managing technology portfolios. This scoping review suggests a generally accepted definition of early health technology assessment to be "all methods used to inform industry and other stakeholders about the potential value of new medical products in development, including methods to quantify and manage uncertainty". The present review also aimed to identify recent published empirical studies employing an early-stage assessment of a medical product. With most included studies carried out to support a market launch, the dominant methodology was early health economic modeling. Further methodological development is required, in particular, by combining systems engineering and health economics to manage uncertainty in medical product portfolios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pharmaceuticals are usually granted a marketing authorisation on the basis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Occasionally the efficacy of a treatment is assessed without a randomised comparator group (either active or placebo).Objective: To identify and develop a taxonomic account of economic modelling approaches for pharmaceuticals licensed without RCT data.Methods: We searched PubMed, the websites of UK health technology assessment bodies and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Scientific Presentations Database for assessments of treatments granted a marketing authorisation by the US Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency from January 1999 to May 2014 without RCT data (74 indications). The outcome of interest was the approach to modelling efficacy data.Results: Fifty-one unique models were identified in 29 peer-reviewed articles, 30 health technology appraisals, and 15 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research abstracts concerning 30 indications (44 indications had not been modelled). We noted the high rate of non-submission to health technology assessment agencies (28/98). The majority of models (43/51) were based on 'historical controls'-comparisons to previous meta-analysis or pooling of trials (5), individual trials (16), registries/case series (15), or expert opinion (7). Other approaches used the patient as their own control, performed threshold analysis, assumed time on treatment was added to overall survival, or performed cost-minimisation analysis.Conclusions: There is considerable variation in the quality and approach of models constructed for drugs granted a marketing authorisation without a RCT. The most common approach is of a naive comparison to historical data (using other trials/registry data as a control group), which has considerable scope for bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Janssen, the company manufacturing abiraterone acetate (AA; tradename Zytiga®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of AA in combination with prednisone/prednisolone (AAP) compared with watchful waiting (i.e. best supportive care [BSC]) for chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company submission (CS), the ERG report, subsequent addenda, and the development of the NICE guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of AAP based on the CS. An important question in this appraisal was, according to the ERG, whether AAP followed by docetaxel is more effective than BSC followed by docetaxel. In the COU-AA-302 trial, 239 of 546 (43.8 %) AAP patients and 304 of 542 (56.1 %) BSC patients received docetaxel as subsequent therapy, following AA or placebo. The results for this specific group of patients were not presented in the CS; therefore, the ERG asked the company to provide these data in the clarification letter; however, these data were presented as commercial-in-confidence and cannot therefore be reported here. The ERG's critical assessment of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns, including (a) not using the intention-to-treat (ITT) population; (b) inconsistencies in estimating prediction equations; (c) not fully incorporating the impact of adverse events; (d) incorrectly incorporating the new patient access scheme (PAS); and (e) the assumption that AA non-compliance leads to recoverable drug costs. Although some of these issues were adjusted in the ERG base case, the ERG could not estimate the impact of all of these issues, and thus acknowledges that there are still uncertainties concerning the cost-effectiveness evidence. With the exception of the ERG's preference for using the ITT population, the AC agreed with the approach taken in the ERG base case. The original company and ERG base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £46,722 and £57,688 per QALY gained, respectively; these changed to £28,563 and £38,061 per QALY gained, respectively, in the revised base cases applying a new PAS. Regarding the end-of-life criteria, after 24 months approximately 63 % of patients in the control group of the COU-AA-302 trial were still alive, and the median survival was 30.1 months (95 % CI 27.3-34.1). Therefore, it is unlikely that life expectancy would be less than 24 months. The AC stated that the most plausible ICER is likely between £28,600 and £32,800 per QALY gained, and concluded that AAP at this stage in the treatment pathway did not meet the end-of-life criterion for short life expectancy. Moreover, in March 2016, the AC produced the final guidance, stating that AAP is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating mCRPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this paper was to evaluate how uncertainty has been accounted for in the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) submitted by manufacturers to the French National Authority for Health (HAS) and to identify recurring concerns in these submissions.Methods: We used a cross-sectional design to evaluate manufacturers' submissions from the beginning of the evaluation process in October 2013 to the end of May 2015 (n = 28). The sources of uncertainty attached to these CEAs were categorized and assessed. Relevant data were extracted independently by two assessors.Results: Adherence to the HAS reference case was generally considered to be acceptable. Methodological uncertainty and parameter uncertainty were the sources of uncertainty that were most frequently explored by manufacturers. The quality of reporting of deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis varied substantially across submissions, with a frequent lack of justification of the plausible range of parameter point estimates in 12 submissions (43 %). Structural uncertainty was explored much less frequently. Concerns related to omission of either important clinical events or relevant health states or extrapolation of the effects of the technology beyond the time horizon of the clinical trials were identified in 16 submissions (57 %).Conclusions: This study presented a characterization of the treatment of uncertainty for the first 28 manufacturers' submissions to the HAS. This work identified important concerns regarding the exploration of sources of uncertainty. The findings may help manufacturers to improve the quality of their submissions and may provide useful insights for extending guidelines on uncertainty analysis in CEAs submitted to the HAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of lenalidomide (Celgene) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug for treating adults with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) associated with deletion 5q cytogenetic abnormality, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company's submission, the ERG review, and the NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG reviewed the evidence for clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, as submitted by the manufacturer to the NICE. The ERG searched for relevant additional evidence and validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model to examine the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results. Clinical effectiveness was obtained from a three-arm, European, randomized, phase III trial among red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent patients with low-/intermediate-1-risk del5q31 MDS. The primary endpoint was RBC independence for ≥26 weeks, and was reached by a higher proportion of patients in the lenalidomide 10 and 5 mg groups compared with placebo (56.1 and 42.6 vs 5.9 %, respectively; both p < 0.001). The option of dose adjustments after 16 weeks due to dose-limiting toxicities or lack of response made long-term effectiveness estimates unreliable, e.g. overall survival (OS). The de novo model of the manufacturer included a Markov state-transition cost-utility model implemented in Microsoft Excel. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the manufacturer was £56,965. The ERG assessment indicated that the modeling structure represented the course of the disease; however, a few errors were identified and some of the input parameters were challenged. In response to the appraisal documentation, the company revised the economic model, which increased the ICER to £68,125 per quality-adjusted life-year. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) did not recommend lenalidomide as a cost-effective treatment. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) that provided lenalidomide free of charge for patients who remained on treatment after 26 cycles. This PAS improved the ICER to £25,300, although the AC considered the proportion of patients who received treatment beyond 26 cycles, and hence the ICER, to be uncertain. Nevertheless, the AC accepted a commitment from the manufacturer to publish, once available, data on the proportion of patients eligible for the PAS, and believed this provided reassurance that lenalidomide was a cost-effective treatment for low- or intermediate-1-risk MDS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous reviews have evaluated economic analyses of lipid-lowering therapies using lipid levels as surrogate markers for cardiovascular disease. However, drug approval and health technology assessment agencies have stressed that surrogates should only be used in the absence of clinical endpoints.Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the methodologies, weaknesses and strengths of economic models based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates.Methods: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of lipid-lowering therapies using cardiovascular event rates in adults with hyperlipidaemia were sought in Medline, Embase, Medline In-Process, PubMed and NHS EED and conference proceedings. Search results were independently screened, extracted and quality checked by two reviewers.Results: Searches until February 2016 retrieved 3443 records, from which 26 studies (29 publications) were selected. Twenty-two studies evaluated secondary prevention (four also assessed primary prevention), two considered only primary prevention and two included mixed primary and secondary prevention populations. Most studies (18) based treatment-effect estimates on single trials, although more recent evaluations deployed meta-analyses (5/10 over the last 10 years). Markov models (14 studies) were most commonly used and only one study employed discrete event simulation. Models varied particularly in terms of health states and treatment-effect duration. No studies used a systematic review to obtain utilities. Most studies took a healthcare perspective (21/26) and sourced resource use from key trials instead of local data. Overall, reporting quality was suboptimal.Conclusions: This review reveals methodological changes over time, but reporting weaknesses remain, particularly with respect to transparency of model reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite the publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user-friendly 23-item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the 32 technology appraisals completed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK from its establishment to the end of January 2002. It looks at why technologies have been rejected, what has happened to products reviewed at launch, evidence of rationing on cost-effectiveness grounds, and the issues raised for manufacturers and for NICE in the collection and analysis of economic data. It finds that around two-thirds of NICE appraisals have been of pharmaceuticals. Only two 'first in class' products have been reviewed at launch, with quite different results. There is clear evidence of the use of cost-effectiveness criteria to restrict or reject technologies, although these are not the only criteria used in decision making. While a number of concerns with the appraisal process raised by manufacturers have been addressed by NICE, and while the Department of Health is currently consulting on changes to the referral system whereby products are selected for review by NICE, manufacturers remain concerned about the timing of referrals in the product life cycle and about the quality and consistency of the reviews of evidence undertaken by academic groups for NICE. Concerns in the National Health Service centre on whether the right technologies are being referred to NICE and also on the opportunity cost of positive NICE recommendations. Given global budget constraints and the difficulty of withdrawing services, the NICE recommendations tend to preempt growth money that could be used for more cost-effective purposes. NICE should be asked to look at established technologies that may not be cost effective and whose discontinuance could therefore release resources for other more cost-effective treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health economics models are typically built in Microsoft Excel® owing to its wide familiarity, accessibility and perceived transparency. However, given the increasingly rapid and analytically complex decision-making needs of both the pharmaceutical industry and the field of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR), the demands of cost-effectiveness analyses may be better met by the programming language R.Objective: This case study provides an explicit comparison between Excel and R for contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis.Methods: We constructed duplicate cost-effectiveness models using Excel and R (with a user interface built using the Shiny package) to address a hypothetical case study typical of contemporary health technology assessment.Results: We compared R and Excel versions of the same model design to determine the advantages and limitations of the modelling platforms in terms of (i) analytical capability, (ii) data safety, (iii) building considerations, (iv) usability for technical and non-technical users and (v) model adaptability.Conclusions: The findings of this explicit comparison are used to produce recommendations for when R might be more suitable than Excel in contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses. We conclude that selection of appropriate modelling software needs to consider case-by-case modelling requirements, particularly (i) intended audience, (ii) complexity of analysis, (iii) nature and frequency of updates and (iv) anticipated model run time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of technologies are obtaining marketing authorisation based on sparse evidence, which causes growing uncertainty and risk within health technology reimbursement decision making. To ensure that uncertainty is considered and addressed within health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations, uncertainties need to be identified, included in health economic models, and reported.Objective: Our objective was to develop the TRansparent Uncertainty ASsessmenT (TRUST) tool for systematically identifying, assessing, and reporting uncertainties in decision models, with the aim of making uncertainties and their impact on cost effectiveness more explicit and transparent.Methods: TRUST was developed by drawing on the uncertainty and risk assessment literature. To develop and validate this tool, we conducted HTA stakeholder discussion meetings and interviews and applied it in six real-world HTA case studies in the Netherlands and the UK.Results: The TRUST tool enables the identification and categorisation of uncertainty according to its source (transparency issues, methodology issues, and issues with evidence: imprecision, bias and indirectness, and unavailability) in each model aspect. The source of uncertainty determines the appropriate analysis. The impact of uncertainties on cost effectiveness is also assessed. Stakeholders found using the tool to be feasible and of value for transparent uncertainty assessment. TRUST can be used during model development and/or model review.Conclusion: The TRUST tool enables systematic identification, assessment, and reporting of uncertainties in health economic models and may contribute to more informed and transparent decision making in the face of uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic disorders are clinically diverse and genetically heterogeneous, and are traditionally diagnosed based on an iterative phenotype-guided genetic assessment. However, such diagnostic approaches are long (diagnostic odysseys are common), misdiagnoses occur frequently, and diagnostic rates are low. Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technologies may improve diagnostic rates and reduce the time to diagnosis for patients with suspected genetic disorders; however, MPS technologies are expensive and the health economic evidence base to support their use is limited. Several studies have compared the costs of traditional and MPS diagnostic pathways for patients with suspected genetic disorders, however costing methods and diagnostic scenarios are heterogeneous across studies. We conducted a literature review to identify and summarise information on these costing methods and diagnostic scenarios. Relevant studies were identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Library, from 2010 to 2018. Twenty-four articles were included in the review. We observed considerable heterogeneity across studies with respect to the selection of items of resource use used to derive total diagnostic pathway cost estimates. We also observed structural differences in the diagnostic scenarios used to compare the traditional and MPS diagnostic pathways. There is a need for guidelines on the costing of diagnostic pathways to encourage the use of consistent methods. More micro-costing studies that evaluate diagnostic service delivery are also required. Greater homogeneity in costing approaches would facilitate more reliable comparisons between studies and improve the transferability of cost estimates across countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (EUSA Pharma) of dinutuximab beta (Qarziba®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for treating neuroblastoma. The BMJ Technology Assessment Group (BMJ-TAG) was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), reviewing the submission from the company. The Decision Support Unit (DSU) was commissioned to review additional evidence submitted by the company and to undertake further analyses. This article presents the critical review of the company's submissions by the ERG and DSU, further analyses undertaken by the DSU, and the outcome of the NICE guidance. The clinical effectiveness for dinutuximab beta was derived from a phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of interleukin (IL)-2 to dinutuximab beta plus isotretinoin. This trial did not inform the relative effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin alone, which was established practice in the UK for maintenance treatment. In the absence of direct evidence, the company initially conducted a naïve indirect treatment comparison against a historical control, and later performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) against the isotretinoin arm of an RCT comparing dinutuximab alpha and isotretinoin. The company submitted a partitioned survival analysis model that calculated the incremental cost effectiveness of dinutuximab beta versus isotretinoin. The company's original incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £22,338 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. However, the ERG were concerned that the company's ICER was not suitable for decision making, and thus carried out initial exploratory analysis as a first step to overcome the naïve estimation of treatment effectiveness in the model. The ERG's analysis estimated an ICER of £111,858 per QALY gained. In their revised analysis incorporating the MAIC and other changes as requested by the appraisal committee, the company's ICER was £24,661 per QALY gained. When the DSU incorporated longer-term isotretinoin data and made corrections to the model, the ICER increased to between £62,886 and £87,164 per QALY gained depending on the choice of survival model. A confidential Patient Access Scheme (PAS) decreased the ICERs. The ICERs with the PAS were over £40,000 per QALY gained, but the NICE committee additionally considered the patient population and its size, the disease severity, the potential for significant survival benefit and uncaptured health benefits, and recommended dinutuximab beta as a treatment option, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the PAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chondrosphere (Spherox) is a form of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). It is licensed for repair of symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and the patella of the knee with defect sizes up to 10 cm2 in adults. In a single technology appraisal (STA) [TA508] undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Warwick Evidence was the Evidence Review Group (ERG) invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Co.Don. The clinical effectiveness data came from their COWISI randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared Chondrosphere with microfracture (MF). The timing of this appraisal was unfortunate given that MF was no longer the most relevant comparator because NICE had contemporaneously published guidance approving ACI in place of MF. Moreover, the COWISI RCT enrolled mostly patients with small defect sizes. Evidence of clinical effectiveness for Chondrosphere used in people with larger defect size came from another RCT, which compared three doses of Chondrosphere and that by design could not provide evidence comparing Chondrosphere to any other forms of ACI. To estimate the relative clinical performance of Chondrosphere versus other ACI, Co.Don conducted an indirect treatment comparison by network meta-analyses (NMA). The NMA was flawed in that the distribution of population characteristics that are effect modifiers greatly differed across the treatment comparisons of the network. The ERG questioned both the appropriateness of the NMA and the validity of the resulting estimates. Co.Don estimated the cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere using a lifetime Markov model with all patients receiving the first repair during the first cycle of the model then moving into one of three health states: success, no further repair (NFR), or a second repair, if necessary. Subsequent to the first cycle, those who were a success either remained a success or moved to second repair. All those in NFR remained in NFR. The cost-effectiveness of Chondrosphere compared to other ACI forms relied on the clinical effectiveness estimates of success and failure rates obtained from the company's indirect comparisons, the validity of which the ERG questioned. The company revised cost-effectiveness estimates for Chondrosphere versus MF and for Chondrosphere versus matrix-applied characterised autologous cultured chondrocyte implant (MACI) were £4360 and around £18,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. NICE recommended ACI using Chondrosphere for treating symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the femoral condyle and patella of the knee in adults only if certain requirements were met. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Beneluxa collaboration initiative, which intends to support the accessibility and affordability of medicines. It discusses how smaller nations do not have the ability of negotiating with reducing the prices set by large pharmaceutical companies, intertemporal discounting an example of health technology assessment (HTA) methods.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop an EQ-5D-5L value set reflecting the health preferences of the Malaysian adult population.Methods: Respondents were sampled with quotas for urbanicity, gender, age, and ethnicity to ensure representativeness of the Malaysian population. The study was conducted using a standardized protocol involving the EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT) computer-assisted interview system. Respondents were administered ten composite time trade-off (C-TTO) tasks and seven discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks. Both linear main effects and constrained non-linear regression models of C-TTO-only data and hybrid models combining C-TTO and DCE data were explored to determine an efficient and informative model for value set prediction.Results: Data from 1125 respondents representative of the Malaysian population were included in the analysis. Logical consistency was present in all models tested. Using cross-validation, eight-parameter models for C-TTO only and C-TTO + DCE hybrid data displayed greater out-of-sample predictive accuracy than their 20-parameter, main-effect counterparts. The hybrid eight-parameter model was chosen to represent the Malaysian value set, as it displayed greater out-of-sample predictive accuracy over C-TTO data than the C-TTO-only model, and produced more precise estimates. The estimated value set ranged from - 0.442 to 1.Conclusions: The constrained eight-parameter hybrid model demonstrated the best potential in representing the Malaysian value set. The presence of the Malaysian EQ-5D-5L value set will facilitate its application in research and health technology assessment activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) demonstrates the parameter uncertainty in a decision problem. The technique involves sampling parameters from their respective distributions (rather than simply using mean/median parameter values). Guidance in the literature, and from health technology assessment bodies, on the number of simulations that should be performed suggests a 'sufficient number', or until 'convergence', which is seldom defined. The objective of this tutorial is to describe possible outcomes from PSA, discuss appropriate levels of accuracy, and present guidance by which an analyst can determine if a sufficient number of simulations have been conducted, such that results are considered to have converged. The proposed approach considers the variance of the outcomes of interest in cost-effectiveness analysis as a function of the number of simulations. A worked example of the technique is presented using results from a published model, with recommendations made on best practice. While the technique presented remains essentially arbitrary, it does give a mechanism for assessing the level of simulation error, and thus represents an advance over current practice of a round number of simulations with no assessment of model convergence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Their reflections are timely, coinciding not only with NICE's 20th anniversary of operation but also with NICE's ongoing review of its HTA methods [[2]]. The authors helpfully point to the existence of technical support documents, commissioned by NICE and developed by the Decision Support Unit (DSU), that cover emerging methodological issues, beyond the formal methods guides, to provide a steer at a more operational level. Because we operate at the interface between the world in which new treatments are developed and the NHS in which they are used, we experience and respond to frequently conflicting ambitions for what the NHS should do. [Extracted from the article]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including the drugs and medical devices innovations; the new approaches to exploring structural uncertainty and the need to renew the analytical framework guidance for health technology assessment (HTA).

Background: Spending on new healthcare technologies increases net population health when the benefits of a new technology are greater than their opportunity costs-the benefits of the best alternative use of the additional resources required to fund a new technology.Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the expected incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of increased government health expenditure as an empirical estimate of the average opportunity costs of decisions to fund new health technologies. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is proposed as a reference ICER to inform value-based decision making in Australia.Methods: Empirical top-down approaches were used to estimate the QALY effects of government health expenditure with respect to reduced mortality and morbidity. Instrumental variable two-stage least-squares regression was used to estimate the elasticity of mortality-related QALY losses to a marginal change in government health expenditure. Regression analysis of longitudinal survey data representative of the general population was used to isolate the effects of increased government health expenditure on morbidity-related, QALY gains. Clinical judgement informed the duration of health-related quality-of-life improvement from the annual increase in government health expenditure.Results: The base-case reference ICER was estimated at AUD28,033 per QALY gained. Parametric uncertainty associated with the estimation of mortality- and morbidity-related QALYs generated a 95% confidence interval AUD20,758-37,667.Conclusion: Recent public summary documents suggest new technologies with ICERs above AUD40,000 per QALY gained are recommended for public funding. The empirical reference ICER reported in this article suggests more QALYs could be gained if resources were allocated to other forms of health spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the economic evaluation which has increasingly become an integral component of randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. It states that organizations in Great Britain such as the National Institute for Health Research's Health Technology Assessment Programme and the Medical Research Council are funding RCTs that are trying to address both clinical effectiveness issues as well as cost-effectiveness considerations.

Introduction and Objective: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. MS is considered incurable; however, disease treatment has advanced significantly over the past several decades with the introduction of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The current study reviewed the cost-effectiveness analyses of DMTs in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients.Methods: A systematic literature search of bibliographic databases was conducted to identify economic evaluations published after 2007. The relevant population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) were considered. The outcomes of interest were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net monetary benefits, incremental benefits, and incremental costs. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the reporting quality of published studies.Results: A total of 1370 potentially relevant citations were identified, of which 33 published articles and four Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports prepared for the UK were included in the final analysis. Almost all studies were based on a health economic model and considered RRMS as the phase of disease at study entry. The studies were conducted in 10 different countries, with approximately 50% based in the US. Study outcomes were rarely comparable due to the different settings, input data, and assumptions. Even within the same country, the discrepancy between study criteria was considerable. The compliance with reporting standards of the CHEERS statement was generally high.Conclusions: Internationally, a large number of health economic assessments of DMTs in RRMS were available, yielding difficult to compare, and at times conflicting, results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company (GlaxoSmithKline) that manufactures mepolizumab (Nucala®) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and omalizumab, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials (DREAM, MENSA and SIRIUS) comparing add-on mepolizumab with placebo plus SoC. The relevant population was defined in terms of degree of asthma severity (four or more exacerbations in the previous year and/or dependency on maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]) and degree of eosinophilia (a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µl in the previous year) based on post hoc subgroup analyses of the pivotal trials. Other subpopulations were considered throughout the appraisal, defined by different eosinophil measurements, number of exacerbations and dependency (or lack thereof) on mOCS. Statistically significant reductions in clinically significant exacerbations were observed in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with SoC meta-analysed across MENSA and DREAM in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (rate ratio [RR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.62) as well as in the relevant population (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.62). In terms of quality of life, differences on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in MENSA for add-on subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg vs. placebo were 7 and 7.5 units in the modified ITT and relevant populations, respectively. A number of issues in the clinical evidence base warrant caution in its interpretation. The ERG noted that the definition of SoC used in the trials differed from that in clinical practice, where patients with severe uncontrolled asthma start treatment with a mOCS. The company's economic post-consultation analysis incorporating a confidential patient access scheme (PAS) estimated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC was £27,418 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the relevant population if patients stopped mepolizumab after 1 year unless (1) the number of exacerbations decreased at least 50% or (2) a reduction in corticosteroids dose was achieved whilst maintaining asthma control. The ERG applied an age adjustment to all utilities and corrected the post-continuation assessment utilities, which resulted in an ICER for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC of £29,163 per QALY gained. The ERG noted that this ICER was not robust for patients who continued treatment due to a corticosteroid dose reduction where exacerbations had decreased by less than 50%, because corticosteroid dose reduction was not allowed in the main trial in which the evidence was gathered (MENSA). The NICE appraisal committee (AC) concluded that add-on mepolizumab could be recommended as an option for treating severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adults for the relevant population when the stopping rule suggested by the company was applied. The AC also concluded that the comparison between mepolizumab and omalizumab was not clinically relevant or methodologically robust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recommendations and guidelines for the collection, generation, source and usage of utility data for health technology assessment (HTA) vary across different countries, with no international consensus. Many international agencies generate their own guidelines providing details on their preferred methods for HTA submissions, and there is variability in both what they recommend and the clarity and amount of detail provided in their guidelines. This article provides an overview of international regulations and recommendations for utility data in HTA for a selection of key HTA countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden and the UK (England/Wales and Scotland). International guidelines are typically clear and detailed for the selection of countries assessed regarding the source description of health states (e.g. generic preference-based measure) and who should provide preference weights for these health states (e.g. general population for own country). Many guidelines specify the use of off-the-shelf generic preference-based measures, and some further specify a measure, such as EQ-5D. However, international guidelines are either unclear or lack detailed guidance regarding the collection (e.g. patients report own health), source (e.g. clinical trial) and usage (e.g. adjusting for comorbidities) of utility values. It is argued that there is a need for transparent and detailed international guidelines on utility data recommendations to provide decision makers with the best possible evidence. Where this is not possible it is recommended that best practice should be used to inform the collection, source and usage of utility values in HTA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (UCB Pharma) of certolizumab pegol (CZP; Cimzia®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following inadequate response to a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for CZP was based predominantly on six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of CZP against placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of CZP against the comparators within the scope; therefore, the company performed a network meta-analysis (NMA). The company's NMA concluded that CZP had a similar efficacy to that of its comparators. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of CZP versus comparator biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service for three decision problems, each of which followed an inadequate response to a TNFi. These were (1) a comparison against rituximab (RTX) in combination with methotrexate (MTX); (2) a comparison against bDMARDs when RTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event; and (3) a comparison against bDMARDs when MTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event. Results from the company's economic evaluation showed that CZP resulted in a similar number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) produced at similar or lower costs compared with comparator bDMARDs. The commercial-in-confidence patient access schemes for abatacept and tocilizumab could not be incorporated by the company, but were incorporated by the ERG in a confidential appendix for the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company estimated that the addition of CZP before RTX in a sequence for patients who could receive MTX produced more QALYs at an increased cost, with a cost per QALY of £33,222. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that did not change the conclusions reached based on the company's economic evaluation in relation to the comparison with bDMARDs. The ERG estimated that where CZP replaced RTX, CZP was dominated, as it produced fewer QALYs at an increased cost. The AC concluded that there was little difference in effectiveness between CZP and comparator bDMARDs and that equivalence among bDMARDs could be accepted. The AC consequently recommended CZP plus MTX for people for whom RTX is contraindicated or not tolerated and CZP monotherapy for people for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated. The AC concluded that CZP plus MTX could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources when RTX plus MTX is a treatment option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Until recently, advanced melanoma (unresectable and metastatic) has had a poor prognosis and has been treated with chemotherapy. The introduction of new treatments (BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy) has improved overall survival and progression-free survival of some patients.Objective: The objective of this study was to review the published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for advanced melanoma.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted, without date or language restrictions, in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence databases and the Health Technology Assessment journal. Internet searches were also made to identify possible grey literature. Main study characteristics, methods and outcomes were extracted and critically assessed. The quality of health economic studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Economic Evaluation in Health Care checklist.Results: The search identified nine full-text pharmacoeconomic analyses of advanced melanoma treatments. According to the economic analyses published in the articles, the new treatments have been shown to be more effective (with more life-years and quality-adjusted life-years) than chemotherapy, although generally the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was above the commonly accepted threshold. Because of the variability of the available analyses comparing the new treatments, we cannot determine which treatment is the most cost-effective.Conclusions: From the available data, it cannot be concluded that the new drugs (BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy) are cost effective compared with chemotherapy or which is the most cost-effective new treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal process, the manufacturer of crizotinib submitted evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of crizotinib in untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Crizotinib has previously been assessed by NICE for patients with previously treated ALK-positive NSCLC (TA 296). It was not approved in this previous appraisal, but had been made available through the cancer drugs fund. As part of this new appraisal, the company included a price discount patient access scheme (PAS). The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company's submission and the ERG's review and summarises the resulting NICE guidance issued in August 2016. The main clinical-effectiveness data were derived from a multicentre randomised controlled trial-PROFILE 1014-that compared crizotinib with pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with untreated non-squamous ALK-positive NSCLC. In the trial, crizotinib demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The company's economic model was a three-state 'area under the curve' Markov model. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be greater than £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (excluding the PAS discount). The ERG assessment of the evidence submitted by the company raised a number of concerns. In terms of the clinical evidence, the OS benefit was highly uncertain due to the cross-over permitted in the trial and the immaturity of the data; only 26% of events had occurred by the data cut-off point. In the economic modelling, the most significant concerns related to the analysis of OS and assumptions made regarding the duration of therapy. The ERG exploratory re-analysis of the OS data relaxed the assumption of proportional hazards made in the company submission, which demonstrated significant uncertainty regarding the OS gains from crizotinib. The ERG reconfigured the economic model so that duration of therapy was based on the area under the curve analysis of the PROFILE 1014 trial, dramatically increasing the cost associated with implementing crizotinib and consequently, substantially increasing the ICER. At the first appraisal meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib, while clinically effective, was not sufficiently cost effective for use in the UK NHS. Following the consultation, the company offered a revised PAS and conducted extensive re-analysis, resulting in a revised base-case ICER of £47,291 per QALY gained. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that crizotinib was likely to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources, despite the uncertainty that persisted around a number of factors, namely the long-term survival benefit of crizotinib. Crizotinib was therefore recommended as an option for untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The volume and technical complexity of both academic and commercial research using decision analytic modelling has increased rapidly over the last two decades. The range of software programs used for their implementation has also increased, but it remains true that a small number of programs account for the vast majority of cost-effectiveness modelling work. We report a comparison of four software programs: TreeAge Pro, Microsoft Excel, R and MATLAB. Our focus is on software commonly used for building Markov models and decision trees to conduct cohort simulations, given their predominance in the published literature around cost-effectiveness modelling. Our comparison uses three qualitative criteria as proposed by Eddy et al.: "transparency and validation", "learning curve" and "capability". In addition, we introduce the quantitative criterion of processing speed. We also consider the cost of each program to academic users and commercial users. We rank the programs based on each of these criteria. We find that, whilst Microsoft Excel and TreeAge Pro are good programs for educational purposes and for producing the types of analyses typically required by health technology assessment agencies, the efficiency and transparency advantages of programming languages such as MATLAB and R become increasingly valuable when more complex analyses are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In many healthcare systems, affordability concerns can lead to restrictions on the use of expensive efficacious therapies. However, there does not appear to be any consensus as to the terminology used to describe affordability, or the thresholds used to determine whether new drugs are affordable.Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how affordability is defined and measured in healthcare.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and EconLit databases (2005-July 2016) were searched using terms covering affordability and budget impact, combined with definitions, thresholds and restrictions, to identify articles describing a definition of affordability with respect to new medicines. Additional definitions were identified through citation searching, and through manual searches of European health technology assessment body websites.Results: In total, 27 definitions were included in the review. Of these, five definitions described affordability in terms of the value of a product; seven considered affordability within the context of healthcare system budgets; and 15 addressed whether products are affordable in a given country based on economic factors. However, there was little in the literature to indicate that the price of medicines is considered alongside both their value to individual patients and their budget impact at a population level.Conclusions: Current methods of assessing affordability in healthcare may be limited by their focus on budget impact. A more effective approach may involve a broader perspective than is currently described in the literature, to consider the long-term benefits of a therapy and cost savings elsewhere in the healthcare system, as well as cooperation between healthcare payers and the pharmaceutical industry to develop financing models that support sustainability as well as innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of adalimumab (AbbVie) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The appraisal assessed adalimumab as monotherapy in adult patients with an inadequate response to conventional systemic HS therapy. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was mainly derived from three randomised controlled trials comparing adalimumab with placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe HS. The clinical-effectiveness review found that significantly more patients achieved a clinical response in the adalimumab groups than in the control groups but that the treatment effect varied between trials and there was uncertainty regarding its impact on a range of other relevant outcomes as well as long-term efficacy. The company's submitted Markov model assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of adalimumab versus standard care for the treatment of HS from the perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. The original submitted model, including a patient access scheme (PAS), suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab versus standard care was expected to be £16,162 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred base case, which corrected programming errors and structural problems surrounding discontinuation rules and incorporated a lower unit cost for HS surgery, resulted in a probabilistic ICER of £29,725 per QALY gained. Based on additional analyses undertaken by the company and the ERG following the publication of the appraisal consultation document (ACD), the Appraisal Committee concluded that the maximum possible ICER for adalimumab compared with supportive care was between £28,500 and £33,200 per QALY gained but was likely to be lower. The Appraisal Committee recommended adalimumab (with the PAS) for the treatment of active moderate-to-severe HS in adults whose disease has not responded to conventional systemic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of evolocumab (Amgen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of evolocumab. The appraisal assessed evolocumab as monotherapy or in combination with a statin with or without ezetimibe, or in combination with ezetimibe (without statin therapy), in adult patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia (which includes mixed dyslipidaemia), for whom statins do not provide optimal control of their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and/or for whom statins are contraindicated or not tolerated. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from four randomised controlled trials comparing evolocumab with either ezetimibe or placebo in adults with primary familial or non-familial hypercholesterolaemia, who were either able to take statins or who were statin intolerant. The clinical-effectiveness review found that evolocumab is efficacious at lowering LDL-C but that there was uncertainty regarding its impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. In response to the ERG's critique of the submitted health economic model, the company submitted an amended model, which also included a patient access scheme (PAS). Based on this, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for evolocumab against ezetimibe were above £74,000 and £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the non-familial primary and secondary prevention populations, respectively, whilst the ICER within the heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) population was approximately £23,000 per QALY gained. The final determination was that evolocumab would be a clinically and cost-effective use of UK NHS resource in certain patient subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Motor neurone disease (MND) is a devastating condition which greatly diminishes patients' quality of life and limits life expectancy. Health technology appraisals of future interventions in MND need robust data on costs and utilities. Existing economic evaluations have been noted to be limited and fraught with challenges.Objective: The aim of this study was to identify and critique methodological aspects of all published economic evaluations, cost studies, and utility studies in MND.Methods: We systematically reviewed all relevant published studies in English from 1946 until January 2016, searching the databases of Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Economics Evaluation Database (HEED). Key data were extracted and synthesised narratively.Results: A total of 1830 articles were identified, of which 15 economic evaluations, 23 cost and 3 utility studies were included. Most economic studies focused on riluzole (n = 9). Six studies modelled the progressive decline in motor function using a Markov design but did not include mutually exclusive health states. Cost estimates for a number of evaluations were based on expert opinion and were hampered by high variability and location-specific characteristics. Few cost studies reported disease-stage-specific costs (n = 3) or fully captured indirect costs. Utilities in three studies of MND patients used the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire or standard gamble, but included potentially unrepresentative cohorts and did not consider any health impacts on caregivers.Conclusion: Economic evaluations in MND suffer from significant methodological issues such as a lack of data, uncertainty with the disease course and use of inappropriate modelling framework. Limitations may be addressed through the collection of detailed and representative data from large cohorts of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, ruxolitinib was assessed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of its use in the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adults with myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib had previously been assessed as part of the STA process and was not recommended in NICE guidance issued in June 2013 (TA289). A review of TA289 was commissioned following the availability of new longer-term survival data; a price discount patient access scheme (PAS) was also introduced. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and Centre for Health Economics (CHE) Technology Appraisal Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a summary of the manufacturer or sponsor of the technology's (referred to as the company) submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance issued in March 2016. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from two good-quality multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs): COMFORT-II compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (BAT) and COMFORT-I compared ruxolitinib with placebo. Both RCTs demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in splenomegaly and its associated symptoms in intermediate-2 and high-risk myelofibrosis patients. Overall survival was statistically significantly improved with ruxolitinib compared with BAT at 3.5 years of follow-up in the COMFORT-II trial (hazard ratio 0.58, 95 % CI 0.36-0.93). Grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequent in the ruxolitinib group than in the BAT group; 42 % compared with 25 %. Evidence relating to patients with lower-risk disease or low platelet counts (50-100 × 109/L) was less robust. The company's economic model was well-presented and had an appropriate model structure. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be around £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (including the PAS discount). Extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses were presented, demonstrating that the estimated ICER was robust to a range of input values and assumptions made in the model. Alternative scenarios presented by the ERG showed only modest increases in the estimated ICER, primarily as a result of including an element of drug wastage within the model. Alternative scenarios resulted in estimated ICERs ranging from around £45,000 to £49,000 per QALY gained (including the PAS discount). At the first appraisal meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ruxolitinib was clinically effective and was a cost effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for patients with high-risk myelofibrosis who meet NICE's end-of-life criteria. Following the consultation, the company offered a revised PAS, resulting in a revised base-case ICER of £31,229 per QALY gained. The company also presented new evidence on the cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib in intermediate-2 and high-risk subgroups and a revised version of the model. The NICE Appraisal Committee considered the new evidence and recommended ruxolitinib for the treatment of patients with intermediate-2-risk disease as well as patients with high-risk disease, based on International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) prognostic factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of olaparib (AstraZeneca) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of olaparib for the maintenance treatment of BRCA1/2 mutated (BRCAm), platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer in people whose relapsed disease has responded to platinum-based chemotherapy. The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical evidence related to one phase II, double-blind randomised controlled trial that recruited 265 patients with PSR serous ovarian cancer (OC) regardless of BRCAm status. Patients received olaparib 400 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) or matched placebo. In the whole population, the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) was met (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.49, p < 0.01) for olaparib versus placebo. The BRCAm subgroup analysis (added after the study commenced but 1 month before the primary analysis was undertaken) reported an HR for PFS of 0.18 (95 % CI 0.10-0.31, p < 0.0001) for olaparib versus placebo, though interaction tests appeared inconclusive. Overall survival was not statistically significant in the whole group (HR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.44) or the BRCAm subgroup (0.73; 95 % CI 0.45-1.17; p = 0.19), though treatment switching may have confounded results. The exclusion of data from sites allowing crossover resulted in an HR for overall survival (OS) of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.28-0.97, p = 0.039) in the BRCAm group. Health-related quality-of-life measures were not significantly different between groups. All post hoc exploratory outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation/death, time to first subsequent therapy/death, and time to second subsequent therapy/death) were statistically significantly better in the olaparib arm in the whole population and the BRCAm subgroup analyses. Adverse events were more frequent for olaparib but were largely minor or manageable. The company's semi-Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of olaparib versus routine surveillance in patients with BRCAm PSR OC from a National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. The model suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for olaparib versus routine surveillance is expected to be approximately £49,146 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG did not consider the company's cost-effectiveness estimates to be credible. Additional ERG analyses suggested that the ICER is likely to be more than £92,214 per QALY gained. Additional analyses provided by the company in patients who received three or more lines of chemotherapy suggested a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile for olaparib. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended olaparib for this subgroup provided the cost of olaparib for people who continue to receive treatment after 15 months will be met by the company. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product's value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]