Dataset Information

The impact of incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis - a case study of pharmacotherapies for moderate to severe COPD.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the impact of using network meta-analysis (NMA) versus pair wise meta-analyses (PMA) for evidence synthesis on key outputs of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

Methods

We conducted Bayesian NMA of randomized clinical trials providing head-to-head and placebo comparisons of the effect of pharmacotherapies on the exacerbation rate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Separately, the subset of placebo-comparison trials was used in a Bayesian PMA. The pooled rate ratios (RR) were used to populate a decision-analytic model of COPD treatment to predict 10-year outcomes.

Results

Efficacy estimates from the NMA and PMA were similar, but the NMA provided estimates with higher precision. This resulted in similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Probabilities of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTPs) between $25,000 and $100,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) varied considerably between the PMA- and NMA-based approaches. The largest difference in the probabilities of being cost-effective was observed at a WTP of approximately $40,000/QALY. At this threshold, with the PMA-based analysis, ICS, LAMA and placebo had a 43%, 30, and 18% probability of being the most cost-effective. By contrast, with the NMA based approach, ICS, LAMA, and placebo had a 56%, 19%, and 21% probability of being cost-effective. For larger WTP thresholds the probability of LAMA being the most cost-effective became higher than that of ICS. Under the PMA-based analyses the cross-over occurred at a WTP threshold between $60,000/QALY-$65,000/QALY, whereas under the NMA-based approach, the cross-over occurred between $85,000/QALY-$90,000/QALY.

Conclusion

Use of NMAs in CEAs is feasible and, as our case study showed, can decrease uncertainty around key cost-effectiveness measures compared with the use of PMAs. The approval process of health technologies in many jurisdictions requires estimates of comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. NMAs play an increasingly important role in providing estimates of comparative efficacy. Their use in the CEAs therefore results in methodological consistency and reduced uncertainty.

SUBMITTER: Thorlund K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4007707 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis - a case study of pharmacotherapies for moderate to severe COPD.

Thorlund Kristian K Zafari Zafar Z Druyts Eric E Mills Edward J EJ Sadatsafavi Mohsen M

Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E 20140313 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the impact of using network meta-analysis (NMA) versus pair wise meta-analyses (PMA) for evidence synthesis on key outputs of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted Bayesian NMA of randomized clinical trials providing head-to-head and placebo comparisons of the effect of pharmacotherapies on the exacerbation rate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Separately, the subset of placebo-comparison trials was used in a Bayesian PMA. Th ...[more]

PMID: 24625208

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: This study analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) vs. budesonide/formoterol double combination (BUD/FOR) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provides evidence for COPD treatment decisions. Methods: From the perspective of the healthcare system, a Markov model was established that consists of four states-stable period, non-severely deteriorating period, severely deteriorating period, and death-according to real-world COPD progression. The model period comprises 6 months, with a cycle length of 14 years. The initial state, transition probabilities, costs, and utility data were collected from the FULFIL trial, published literature, hospital record surveys, and China Health Statistics Yearbook. The discount rate was 5%, and the threshold was set as the Chinese per capita GDP in 2020 (¥72,447). The cost, utility, transition probabilities, and discount rate were calculated through TreeagePro11 software. The results were analyzed via one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Results: The baseline study shows that the 14-year treatment for FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR groups are ¥199,765.55 and ¥173,030.05 with effectiveness at 8.54 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 7.73 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is ¥33,006.80/QALY, which is below the threshold. A tornado diagram of a one-way sensitivity analysis shows that the top three factors that affected the results are the non-severe deterioration rates of FF/UMEC/VI, the cost of FF/UMEC/VI and the non-severe deterioration rates of BUD/FOR. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that FF/UMEC/VI (compared to BUD/FOR) can be made cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (¥38,000). Furthermore, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness increases with a higher WTP. Conclusions: Compared with the double combination (BUD/FOR), the triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) is more cost-effective under the Chinese per capita GDP threshold.

Project description:BackgroundBronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a recently developed treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. A few studies have suggested the clinical efficacy of this intervention. However, no study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BT compared to other alternative treatments for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, which currently include omalizumab and standard therapy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in the USA.MethodsA probabilistic Markov model with weekly cycles was developed to reflect the course of asthma progression over a 5-year time horizon. The study population was adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma whose asthma remained uncontrolled despite using high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS, with or without long-acting beta-agonists [LABA]). A perspective of the health-care system was adopted with asthma-related costs as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and exacerbations as the outcomes.ResultsFor standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab, the discounted 5-year costs and QALYs were $15,400 and 3.08, $28,100 and 3.24, and $117,000 and 3.26, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BT versus standard therapy and omalizumab versus BT was $78,700/QALY and $3.86 million/QALY, respectively. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, the probability of BT being cost-effective was 9%, and 67%, respectively. The corresponding expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $155 and $1,530 per individual at these thresholds. In sensitivity analyses, increasing the costs of BT from $14,900 to $30,000 increased its ICER relative to standard therapy to $178,000/QALY, and decreased the ICER of omalizumab relative to BT to $3.06 million/QALY. Reducing the costs of omalizumab by 25% decreased its ICER relative to BT by 29%.ConclusionsBased on the available evidence, our study suggests that there is more than 60% chance that BT becomes cost-effective relative to omalizumab and standard therapy at the WTP of $100,000/QALY in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, there is a substantial uncertainty in the underlying evidence, indicating the need for future research towards reducing such uncertainty.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS) comparing ixekizumab versus secukinumab. DESIGN:A Markov model with a lifetime horizon and monthly cycles was developed based on the York model. Four health states were included: a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) induction period of 12 or 16?weeks, maintenance therapy, best supportive care (BSC) and death. Treatment response was assessed based on both Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and ?90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index score (PASI90). At the end of the induction period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy. Non-responders and patients who discontinued maintenance therapy transitioned to BSC. Clinical efficacy data were derived from a network meta-analysis. Health utilities were generated by applying a regression analysis to Psoriasis Area Severity Index and Health Assessment Questionnaire?Disability Index scores collected in the ixekizumab SPIRIT studies. Results were subject to extensive sensitivity and scenario analysis. SETTING:Spanish NHS. PARTICIPANTS:A hypothetical cohort of bDMARD-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis and concomitant moderate-to-severe psoriasis was modelled. INTERVENTIONS:Ixekizumab and secukinumab. RESULTS:Ixekizumab performed favourably over secukinumab in the base-case analysis, although cost savings and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were modest. Total costs were €153?901 compared with €156?559 for secukinumab (difference -€2658). Total QALYs were 9.175 vs 9.082 (difference 0.093). Base-case results were most sensitive to the annual bDMARD discontinuation rate and the modification of PsARC and PASI90 response to ixekizumab or secukinumab. CONCLUSION:Ixekizumab provided more QALYs at a lower cost than secukinumab, with differences being on a relatively small scale. Sensitivity analysis showed that base-case results were generally robust to changes in most input parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:SPIRIT-P1: NCT01695239; Post-results, SPIRIT-P2: NCT02349295; Post-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.ResultsIn the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.ConclusionThe current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.

Project description:Background & aimsWe compared the efficacy and safety of different first-line (biologic-naïve) and second-line (prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists) agents for treatment of moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched publication databases through September 30, 2019, for randomized trials of adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis treated with TNF antagonists, vedolizumab, tofacitinib, or ustekinumab, as first-line or second-line agents, compared with placebo or another active agent. Efficacy outcomes were induction and maintenance of remission and endoscopic improvement; safety outcomes were serious adverse events and infections. We performed a fixed-effects network meta-analysis using the frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI values. Agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Overall quality of evidence was rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).ResultsIn biologic-naïve patients, infliximab was ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (OR vs placebo, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.67-6.21; SUCRA, 0.95) and endoscopic improvement (SUCRA, 0.95) (moderate confidence in estimates [CE]). In patients with prior exposure to TNF antagonists, ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.87) and tofacitinib (SUCRA, 0.87) were ranked highest for induction of clinical remission and were superior to vedolizumab (ustekinumab vs vedolizumab: OR, 5.99; 95% CI, 1.13-31.76 and tofacitinib vs vedolizumab: OR, 6.18; 95% CI, 1.003-8.00; moderate CE) and adalimumab (ustekinumab vs adalimumab: OR, 10.71; 95% CI, 2.01-57.20 and tofacitinib vs adalimumab: OR, 11.05; 95% CI, 1.79-68.41; moderate CE). Vedolizumab had the lowest risk of infections (SUCRA, 0.81), followed by ustekinumab (SUCRA, 0.63) in maintenance trials.ConclusionsIn a systematic review and network meta-analysis, we found infliximab to be ranked highest in biologic-naïve patients, and ustekinumab and tofacitinib were ranked highest in patients with prior exposure to TNF antagonists, for induction of remission and endoscopic improvement in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. More trials of direct comparisons are needed to inform clinical decision making with greater confidence.

Dataset Information

The impact of incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis - a case study of pharmacotherapies for moderate to severe COPD.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The impact of incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis - a case study of pharmacotherapies for moderate to severe COPD.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets