The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been using a cost-effectiveness threshold range between £20 000 and £30 000 for over 7 years. What the cost-effectiveness threshold represents, what the appropriate level is for NICE to use, and what the other factors are that NICE should consider have all been the subject of much discussion. In this article, we briefly review hese questions, provide a critical assessment of NICE’s utilization of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold to inform its guidance, and suggest ways in which NICE’s utilization of the ICER threshold could be developed to promote the efficient use of health service resources. We conclude that it is feasible and probably desirable to operate an explicit single threshold rather than the current range; the threshold should be seen as a threshold at which ‘other’ criteria beyond the ICER itself are taken into account; interventions with a large budgetary impact may need to be subject to a lower threshold as they are likely to displace more than the marginal activities; reimbursement at the threshold transfers the full value of an innovation to the manufacturer. Positive decisions above the threshold on the grounds of innovation reduce population health; the value of the threshold should be reconsidered regularly to ensure that it captures the impact of changes in efficiency and budget over time; the use of equity weights to sustain a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold requires knowledge of the equity characteristics of those patients who bear the opportunity cost. Given the barriers to obtaining this knowledge and knowledge about the characteristics of typical beneficiaries of UK NHS care, caution is warranted before accepting claims from special pleaders; uncertainty in the evidence base should not be used to justify a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold. The development of a programme of disinvestment guidance would enable NICE and the NHS to be more confident that the net health benefit of the Technology Appraisal Programme is positive

Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the costs and benefits of alternative adjunct non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis and little guidance on which should be prioritised for commissioning within the NHS. This study estimates the costs and benefits of acupuncture, braces, heat treatment, insoles, interferential therapy, laser/light therapy, manual therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, pulsed electrical stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnets and transcutaneous electrical nerve Stimulation (TENS), based on all relevant data, to facilitate a more complete assessment of value. METHODS: Data from 88 randomised controlled trials including 7,507 patients were obtained from a systematic review. The studies reported a wide range of outcomes. These were converted into EQ-5D index values using prediction models, and synthesised using network meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted including firstly all trials and secondly only trials with low risk of selection bias. Resource use was estimated from trials, expert opinion and the literature. A decision analytic model synthesised all evidence to assess interventions over a typical treatment period (constant benefit over eight weeks or linear increase in effect over weeks zero to eight and dissipation over weeks eight to 16). RESULTS: When all trials are considered, TENS is cost-effective at thresholds of £20-30,000 per QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,690 per QALY vs. usual care. When trials with a low risk of selection bias are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,502 per QALY vs. TENS. The results of the analysis were sensitive to varying the intensity, with which interventions were delivered, and the magnitude and duration of intervention effects on EQ-5D. CONCLUSIONS: Using the £20,000 per QALY NICE threshold results in TENS being cost-effective if all trials are considered. If only higher quality trials are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective at this threshold, and thresholds down to £14,000 per QALY

Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic review and meta-analysis currently underpin much of evidence-based medicine. Such methodologies bring order to <it>previous </it>research, but <it>future </it>research planning remains relatively incoherent and inefficient.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To outline a framework for evaluation of health interventions, aimed at increasing coherence and efficiency through i) making better use of information contained within the existing evidence-base when designing future studies; and ii) maximising the information available and thus potentially reducing the need for future studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The framework presented insists that an up-to-date meta-analysis of existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should always be considered before future trials are conducted. Such a meta-analysis should inform critical design issues such as sample size determination. The contexts in which the use of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparisons modelling may be beneficial before further RCTs are conducted are considered. Consideration should also be given to how any newly planned RCTs would contribute to the totality of evidence through its incorporation into an updated meta-analysis. We illustrate how new RCTs can have very low power to change inferences of an existing meta-analysis, particularly when between study heterogeneity is taken into consideration.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>While the collation of existing evidence as the basis for clinical practice is now routine, a more coherent and efficient approach to planning future RCTs to strengthen the evidence base needs to be developed. The framework presented is a proposal for how this situation can be improved.</p

Cognitive and behavioral predictors of light therapy use

Objective: Although light therapy is effective in the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) and other mood disorders, only 53-79% of individuals with SAD meet remission criteria after light therapy. Perhaps more importantly, only 12-41% of individuals with SAD continue to use the treatment even after a previous winter of successful treatment. Method: Participants completed surveys regarding (1) social, cognitive, and behavioral variables used to evaluate treatment adherence for other health-related issues, expectations and credibility of light therapy, (2) a depression symptoms scale, and (3) self-reported light therapy use. Results: Individuals age 18 or older responded (n = 40), all reporting having been diagnosed with a mood disorder for which light therapy is indicated. Social support and self-efficacy scores were predictive of light therapy use (p's<.05). Conclusion: The findings suggest that testing social support and self-efficacy in a diagnosed patient population may identify factors related to the decision to use light therapy. Treatments that impact social support and self-efficacy may improve treatment response to light therapy in SAD. © 2012 Roecklein et al

Impact of statins and ACE inhibitors on mortality after COPD exacerbations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of our study was to examine the association of prior outpatient use of statins and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors on mortality for subjects ≥ 65 years of age hospitalized with acute COPD exacerbations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a retrospective national cohort study using Veterans Affairs administrative data including subjects ≥65 years of age hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation. Our primary analysis was a multilevel model with the dependent variable of 90-day mortality and hospital as a random effect, controlling for preexisting comorbid conditions, demographics, and other medications prescribed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 11,212 subjects with a mean age of 74.0 years, 98% were male, and 12.4% of subjects died within 90-days of hospital presentation. In this cohort, 20.3% of subjects were using statins, 32.0% were using ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). After adjusting for potential confounders, current statin use (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.40–0.64) and ACE inhibitor/ARB use (0.55, 0.46–0.66) were significantly associated with decreased 90-day mortality.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Use of statins and ACE inhibitors prior to admission is associated with decreased mortality in subjects hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation. Randomized controlled trials are needed to examine whether the use of these medications are protective for those patients with COPD exacerbations.</p

Efficacy and safety of indacaterol 150 μg once-daily in COPD: a double-blind, randomised, 12-week study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Indacaterol is a novel, once-daily (o.d.) inhaled, long-acting <it>β</it>₂-agonist in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 12-week, double-blind study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of indacaterol to that of placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Efficacy variables included 24-h trough FEV₁(mean of 23 h 10 min and 23 h 45 min post-dose) at Week 12 (primary endpoint) and after Day 1, and the percentage of COPD days with poor control (i.e., worsening symptoms). Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs), mean serum potassium and blood glucose, QTc (Fridericia), and vital signs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients were randomised (n = 416, mean age 63 years) to receive either indacaterol 150 <it>μ</it>g o.d. (n = 211) or placebo (n = 205) via a single-dose dry-powder inhaler; 87.5% completed the study. Trough FEV₁(LSM ± SEM) at Week 12 was 1.48 ± 0.018 L for indacaterol and 1.35 ± 0.019 L for placebo, a clinically relevant difference of 130 ± 24 mL (p < 0.001). Trough FEV₁after one dose was significantly higher with indacaterol than placebo (p < 0.001). Indacaterol demonstrated significantly higher peak FEV₁than placebo, both on Day 1 and at Week 12, with indacaterol-placebo differences (LSM ± SEM) of 190 ± 28 (p < 0.001) and 160 ± 28 mL (p < 0.001), respectively. Standardised AUC measurements for FEV₁(between 5 min and 4 h, 5 min and 1 h, and 1 and 4 h post-dose) at Week 12 were all significantly greater with indacaterol than placebo (p < 0.001), with LSM (± SEM) differences of 170 ± 24, 180 ± 24, and 170 ± 24 mL, respectively. Indacaterol significantly reduced the percentage of days of poor control versus placebo by 22.5% (p < 0.001) and was also associated with significantly reduced use of rescue medication (p < 0.001). The overall rates of AEs were comparable between the groups (indacaterol 49.3%, placebo 46.8%), with the most common AEs being COPD worsening (indacaterol 8.5%, placebo 12.2%) and cough (indacaterol 6.2%, placebo 7.3%). One patient died in the placebo group. Serum potassium and blood glucose levels did not differ significantly between the two groups, and no patient had QTc >500 ms.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Indacaterol 150 <it>μ</it>g o.d. provided clinically significant and sustained bronchodilation, reduced rescue medication use, and had a safety and tolerability profile similar to placebo.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00624286</p

Brentuximab vedotin in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma post-autologous stem cell transplant : a cost-effectiveness analysis in Scotland

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma who have received autologous stem cell transplantation, from a Scottish healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based partitioned survival model comprising three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival, and death) was developed. Relevant comparators were chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy (C/R) and C/R with intent to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). Data were obtained from the pivotal phase II single-arm trial in 102 patients (SG035-0003; NCT00848926), a systematic literature review and clinical expert opinions (where empirical evidence was unavailable). PFS and overall survival for brentuximab vedotin were estimated using 5-year follow-up data from SG035-0003, and extrapolated using event rates observed for comparator treatments from published survival data. Resource use included drug acquisition and administration; alloSCT; treatment of adverse events; and long-term follow-up. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for brentuximab vedotin was £38,769 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) vs C/R, whereas C/R with intent to alloSCT was dominated by brentuximab vedotin. ICERs for brentuximab vedotin generated by the deterministic sensitivity analysis ranged between £32,000-£54,000 per QALY. Including productivity benefits reduced the ICER to £28,881 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include lack of comparative data from this single arm study and the heterogeneous population. Inconsistent baseline characteristic reporting across studies prevented complete assessment of heterogeneity and the extent of potential bias in clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Although the base case ICER is above the threshold usually applied in Scotland, it is relatively low compared with other orphan drugs, and lower than the ICER generated using a previous data cut of SG035-0003 that informed a positive recommendation from the Scottish Medicines Consortium, under its decision-making framework for assessment of ultra-orphan medicines

Chapter 10: Deciding Whether to Complement a Systematic Review of Medical Tests with Decision Modeling

Limited by what is reported in the literature, most systematic reviews of medical tests focus on “test accuracy” (or better, test performance), rather than on the impact of testing on patient outcomes. The link between testing, test results and patient outcomes is typically complex: even when testing has high accuracy, there is no guarantee that physicians will act according to test results, that patients will follow their orders, or that the intervention will yield a beneficial endpoint. Therefore, test performance is typically not sufficient for assessing the usefulness of medical tests. Modeling (in the form of decision or economic analysis) is a natural framework for linking test performance data to clinical outcomes. We propose that (some) modeling should be considered to facilitate the interpretation of summary test performance measures by connecting testing and patient outcomes. We discuss a simple algorithm for helping systematic reviewers think through this possibility, and illustrate it by means of an example