Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: A review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Objectives: The aim of this study was to establish a list of priority topics for methods research to support decision making at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Methods: Potential priorities for methods research topics were identified through a focused literature review, interviews, an email survey, a workshop and a Web-based feedback exercise. Participants were members of the NICE secretariat and its advisory bodies, representatives from academia, industry, and other organizations working closely with NICE. The Web exercise was open to anyone to complete but publicized among the above groups. Results: A list of potential topics was collated. Priorities for further research differed according to the type of respondent and the extent to which they work directly with NICE. Priorities emerging from the group closest to NICE included: methodology for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons; synthesis of qualitative evidence; research relating to the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in decision making; methods and empirical research for establishing the cost-effectiveness threshold; and determining how data on the uncertainty of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data should be taken into account in the decision-making process. Priorities emerging from the broadest group of respondents (through the Web exercise) included: methods for extrapolating beyond evidence observed in trials, methods for capturing benefits not included in the QALY and methods to assess when technologies should be recommended in the context of further evidence gathering. Conclusions: Consideration needs to be given to the needs of those who use the outputs of research for decision making when determining priorities for future methods research.NIHR Medical Research Council

Laparoscopic fundoplication compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease : cost effectiveness study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The use of MCDA in HTA : great potential, but more effort needed

The potential for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) has been much discussed, and various HTA agencies are piloting or applying MCDA. Alongside these developments, good practice guidelines for the application of MCDA in health care have been developed. An assessment of current applications of MCDA to HTA in light of good practice guidelines reveals, however, that many have methodologic flaws that undermine their usefulness. Three challenges are considered: the use of additive models, a lack of connection between criteria scales and weights, and the use of MCDA in economic evaluation. More attention needs to be paid to MCDA good practice by researchers, journal editors, and decision makers and further methodologic developments are required if MCDA is to achieve its potential to support HTA

Establishing the Value of Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests in Health Technology Assessment

In recent years, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) processes specific to diagnostics and prognostic tests have been created in response to the increased pressure on health systems to decide not only which tests should be used in practice but also the best way to proceed, clinically, from the information they provide. These technologies differ in the way value is accrued to the population of users, depending critically on the value of downstream health care choices. This paper defines an analytical framework for establishing the value of diagnostic and prognostic tests for HTA in a way that is consistent with methods used for the evaluation of other health care technologies. It assumes a linked-evidence approach where modeling is required, and incorporates considerations regarding several different areas of policy, such as personalized medicine. We initially focus on diagnostic technologies with dichotomous results, and then extend the framework by considering diagnostic tests that provide more complex information, such as continuous measures (for example, blood glucose measurements) or multiple categories (such as tumor classification systems). We also consider how the methods of assessment differ for prognostic information or for diagnostics without a reference standard. Throughout, we propose innovative graphical ways of summarizing the results of such complex assessments of value

Using the Incremental Net Benefit Framework for Quantitative Benefit–Risk Analysis in Regulatory Decision-Making—A Case Study of Alosetron in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

AbstractObjectiveThere is consensus that a more transparent, explicit, and rigorous approach to benefit–risk evaluation is required. The objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental net benefit (INB) framework for undertaking quantitative benefit–risk assessment by performing a quantitative benefit–risk analysis of alosetron for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome from the patients’ perspective.MethodsA discrete event simulation model was developed to determine the INB of alosetron relative to placebo, calculated as “relative value-adjusted life-years (RVALYs).”ResultsIn the base case analysis, alosetron resulted in a mean INB of 34.1 RVALYs per 1000 patients treated relative to placebo over 52 weeks of treatment. Incorporating parameter uncertainty into the model, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a mean INB of 30.4 (95% confidence interval 15.9–45.4) RVALYs per 1000 patients treated relative to placebo over 52 weeks of treatment. Overall, there was >99% chance that both the incremental benefit and incremental risk associated with alosetron are greater than placebo. As hypothesized, the INB of alosetron was greatest in patients with the worst quality of life experienced at baseline. The mean INB associated with alosetron in patients with mild, moderate, and severe symptoms at baseline was 17.97 (−0.55 to 36.23), 29.98 (17.05–43.37), and 35.98 (23.49–48.77) RVALYs per 1000 patients treated, respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential utility of applying the INB framework to real-life decision-making, and the ability to use simulation modeling incorporating outcomes data from different sources as a benefit–risk decision aid

Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies

Background The iDSI reference case, originally published in 2014, aims to improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). This study assesses whether the development of the guideline is associated with an improvement in methodological and reporting practices for CEAs using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Methods We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Global Health CEA Registry to identify cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2011 to 2017. Among each of 11 principles in the iDSI reference case, we translated all methodological specifications and reporting standards into a series of binary questions (satisfied or not satisfied) and awarded articles one point for each item satisfied. We then calculated methodological and reporting adherence scores separately as a percentage of total possible points, measured as normalized adherence score (0% = no adherence; 100% = full adherence). Using the year 2014 as the dissemination period, we conducted a pre-post analysis. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using: 1) optional criteria in scoring, 2) alternate dissemination period (2014–2015), and 3) alternative comparator classification. Results Articles averaged 60% adherence to methodological specifications and 74% adherence to reporting standards. While methodological adherence scores did not significantly improve (59% pre-2014 vs. 60% post-2014, p = 0.53), reporting adherence scores increased slightly over time (72% pre-2014 vs. 75% post-2014, p<0.01). Overall, reporting adherence scores exceeded methodological adherence scores (74% vs. 60%, p<0.001). Articles seldom addressed budget impact (9% reporting, 10% methodological) or equity (7% reporting, 7% methodological). Conclusions The iDSI reference case has substantial potential to serve as a useful resource for researchers and policy-makers in global health settings, but greater effort to promote adherence and awareness is needed to achieve its potential

Using Age-Specific Values for Pediatric HRQoL in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis : Is There a Problem to Be Solved? If So, How?

Value sets for the EQ-5D-Y-3L published to date appear to have distinctive characteristics compared with value sets for corresponding adult instruments: in many cases, the value for the worst health state is higher and there are fewer values < 0. The aim of this paper is to consider how and why values for child and adult health differ; and what the implications of that are for the use of EQ-5D-Y-3L values in economic evaluations to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. We posit four potential explanations for the differences in values: (a) The wording of severity labels may mean the worst problems on the EQ-5D-Y-3L are descriptively less severe than those on the EQ-5D-5L; (b) Adults may genuinely consider that children are less badly affected than adults by descriptively similar health issues. That is, for any given health problem, adult respondents in valuation studies consider children’s overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on average to be higher than that for adults; (c) Values are being sought by eliciting adults’ stated preferences for HRQoL in another person, rather than in themselves (regardless of whether the ‘other person’ concerned is a child); and (d) The need to elicit preferences for child HRQoL that are anchored at dead = 0 invokes special considerations regarding children’s survival. Existing evidence does not rule out the possibility that (c) and (d) exert an upward bias in values. We consider the implications of that for the interpretation and use of values for pediatric HRQoL. Alternative methods for valuing children’s HRQoL in a manner that is not ‘age specific’ are possible and may help to avoid issues of non-comparability. Use of these methods would place the onus on health technology assessment bodies to reflect any special considerations regarding child quality-adjusted life-year gains

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Comments on the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework

As members of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, we read with great interest the new American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options.1 We applaud the Value in Cancer Care Task Force for proposing a conceptual framework to support clinicians and patients in assessing the value of new cancer treatments. We acknowledge the challenges facing clinician–patient decision making, particularly concerning cancer treatments. Like ASCO, we recognize that the cost of treatments is increasingly being placed on patients through cost sharing and that engaging patients as part of making individual treatment decisions is of high importance. The ASCO framework highlights the growing tension among patients, insurance companies, and product manufacturers in a dynamic health care environment. In that light, the framework deserves a field test, and we look forward to seeing the outcome of that experience. We also appreciate the opportunity to offer comments and suggestions on the ASCO framework at this early stage, and our membership stands ready to support ASCO in future enhancements

Clinical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in coronary heart disease: The CE-MARC study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several investigations are currently available to establish the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Of these, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) offers the greatest information from a single test, allowing the assessment of myocardial function, perfusion, viability and coronary artery anatomy. However, data from large scale studies that prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric CMR for the detection of CHD in unselected populations are lacking, and there are few data on the performance of CMR compared with current diagnostic tests, its prognostic value and cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>This is a prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study of 750 patients referred to a cardiologist with suspected CHD. Exercise tolerance testing (ETT) will be preformed if patients are physically able. Recruited patients will then undergo CMR and single photon emission tomography (SPECT) followed in all patients by invasive X-ray coronary angiography. The order of the CMR and SPECT tests will be randomised. The CMR study will comprise rest and adenosine stress perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement and whole-heart MR coronary angiography. SPECT will use a gated stress/rest protocol. The primary objective of the study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CMR in detecting significant coronary stenosis, as defined by X-ray coronary angiography. Secondary objectives include an assessment of the prognostic value of CMR imaging, a comparison of its diagnostic accuracy against SPECT and ETT, and an assessment of cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The CE-MARC study is a prospective, diagnostic accuracy cohort study of 750 patients assessing the performance of a multi-parametric CMR study in detecting CHD using invasive X-ray coronary angiography as the reference standard and comparing it with ETT and SPECT.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77246133</p