Incorporating external evidence in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses: the use of resampling methods.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sadatsafavi M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4055939 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Incorporating external evidence in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses: the use of resampling methods.
Sadatsafavi Mohsen M Marra Carlo C Aaron Shawn S Bryan Stirling S
Trials 20140603
<h4>Background</h4>Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that use patient-specific data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) are popular, yet such CEAs are criticized because they neglect to incorporate evidence external to the trial. A popular method for quantifying uncertainty in a RCT-based CEA is the bootstrap. The objective of the present study was to further expand the bootstrap method of RCT-based CEA for the incorporation of external evidence.<h4>Methods</h4>We utilize the Bayesian inte ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In a network meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity variances are often very imprecisely estimated because data are sparse, so standard errors of treatment differences can be highly unstable. External evidence can provide informative prior distributions for heterogeneity and, hence, improve inferences. We explore approaches for specifying informative priors for multiple heterogeneity variances in a network meta-analysis. First, we assume equal heterogeneity variances across all pairwise intervention comparisons (approach 1); incorporating an informative prior for the common variance is then straightforward. Models allowing unequal heterogeneity variances are more realistic; however, care must be taken to ensure implied variance-covariance matrices remain valid. We consider three strategies for specifying informative priors for multiple unequal heterogeneity variances. Initially, we choose different informative priors according to intervention comparison type and assume heterogeneity to be proportional across comparison types and equal within comparison type (approach 2). Next, we allow all heterogeneity variances in the network to differ, while specifying a common informative prior for each. We explore two different approaches to this: placing priors on variances and correlations separately (approach 3) or using an informative inverse Wishart distribution (approach 4). Our methods are exemplified through application to two network metaanalyses. Appropriate informative priors are obtained from previously published evidence-based distributions for heterogeneity. Relevant prior information on between-study heterogeneity can be incorporated into network meta-analyses, without needing to assume equal heterogeneity across treatment comparisons. The approaches proposed will be beneficial in sparse data sets and provide more appropriate intervals for treatment differences than those based on imprecise heterogeneity estimates.
| S-EPMC6492109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCost effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are widely used to evaluate the opportunity cost of health care investments. However, few functions that take equity concerns into account are available for such CEA methods, and these concerns are therefore at risk of being disregarded. Among the functions that have been developed, most focus on the distribution of health gains, as opposed to the distribution of lifetime health. This is despite the fact that there are good reasons to give higher priority to individuals and groups with a low quality adjusted life expectancy from birth (QALE). Also, an even distribution of health gains may imply an uneven distribution of lifetime health.MethodsWe develop a systematic and explicit approach that allows for the inclusion of lifetime health concerns in CEAs, by creating a new priority weight function, PW = ?+(t-?)·C·e-?·(t-?), where t is the health measure. PW has several desirable properties. First, it is continuous and smooth, ensuring that people with similar health characteristics are treated alike. For example, those who achieve 50 QALE should be treated similarly to those who achieve 49.9 QALE. Second, it is flexible regarding shape and outcome measure (i.e., caters to other measures than QALE), so that a broad range of values may be modelled. Third, the coefficients have distinct roles. This allows for the easy manipulation of the PW's shape. In order to demonstrate how PW may be applied, we use data from a previous study and estimated the coefficients of PW based on two approaches.ConclusionsEquity concerns are important when conducting CEAs, which means that suitable PWs should be developed. We do not intend to determine which PW is the most appropriate, but to illustrate how a flexible general PW can be estimated based on empirical data.
| S-EPMC6786599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 11th of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.ObjectivesWe reviewed the literature on incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications in guidelines and recommendations.MethodsWe searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments.Key questions and answersWhen is it important to incorporate cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability considerations in WHO guidelines (which topics)? For cost-effectiveness:The need for cost/effectiveness information should be dictated by the specific question, of which several may be addressed in a single guideline. It is proposed that the indications for undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) could be a starting point for determining which recommendation(s) in the guideline would benefit from such analysis. For resource implications/affordability:The resource implications of each individual recommendation need to be considered when implementation issues are being discussed. How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability be explicitly taken into account in WHO guidelines? For cost-effectiveness: composite function If data are available, the ideal time to consider cost-effectiveness is during the evidence gathering and synthesizing stage. However, because of the inconsistent availability of CEAs and the procedural difficulty associated with adjusting results from different CEAs to make them comparable, it is also possible for cost-effectiveness to be considered during the stage of developing recommendations. composite function Depending on the quantity and quality and relevance of the data available, such data can be considered in a qualitative way or in a quantitative way, ranging from a listing of the costs to a modelling exercise. At the very least, a qualitative approach like a commentary outlining the economic issues that need to be considered is necessary. If a quantitative approach is to be used, the full model should be transparent and comprehensive. For resource implications/affordability: composite function Resource implications, including health system changes, for each recommendation in a WHO guideline should be explored. At the minimum, a qualitative description that can serve as a gross indicator of the amount of resources needed, relative to current practice, should be provided. How does one provide guidance in contextualizing guideline recommendations at the country level based on considerations of cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability? All models should be made available and ideally are designed to allow for analysts to make changes in key parameters and reapply results in their own country. In the global guidelines, scenarios and extensive sensitivity/uncertainty analysis can be applied.Resource implications for WHO. From the above, it is clear that guidelines development groups will need a health economist. There is need to ensure that this is included in the budget for guidelines and that there is in-house support for this as well.
| S-EPMC1764011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe childhood obesity epidemic continues in the U.S., and fiscal crises are leading policymakers to ask not only whether an intervention works but also whether it offers value for money. However, cost-effectiveness analyses have been limited. This paper discusses methods and outcomes of four childhood obesity interventions: (1) sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax (SSB); (2) eliminating tax subsidy of TV advertising to children (TV AD); (3) early care and education policy change (ECE); and (4) active physical education (Active PE).MethodsCost-effectiveness models of nationwide implementation of interventions were estimated for a simulated cohort representative of the 2015 U.S. population over 10 years (2015-2025). A societal perspective was used; future outcomes were discounted at 3%. Data were analyzed in 2014. Effectiveness, implementation, and equity issues were reviewed.ResultsPopulation reach varied widely, and cost per BMI change ranged from $1.16 (TV AD) to $401 (Active PE). At 10 years, assuming maintenance of the intervention effect, three interventions would save net costs, with SSB and TV AD saving $55 and $38 for every dollar spent. The SSB intervention would avert disability-adjusted life years, and both SSB and TV AD would increase quality-adjusted life years. Both SSB ($12.5 billion) and TV AD ($80 million) would produce yearly tax revenue.ConclusionsThe cost effectiveness of these preventive interventions is greater than that seen for published clinical interventions to treat obesity. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of childhood obesity interventions can provide decision makers with information demonstrating best value for the money.
| S-EPMC9508900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a global health emergency since December 2019, leading to millions of deaths worldwide and placing significant pressures, including economic burden, on individual patients and healthcare systems. As of February 2022, remdesivir is the only US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for severe COVID-19. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to summarise economic evaluations, and cost and resource use (CRU) evidence related to remdesivir during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsSearches of MEDLINE, Embase the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, reference lists, congresses and grey literature were performed in May 2021. Articles were reviewed for relevance against pre-specified criteria by two independent reviewers and study quality was assessed using published checklists.ResultsEight studies reported resource use and five reported costs related to remdesivir. Over time, the prescription rate of remdesivir increased and time from disease onset to remdesivir initiation decreased. Remdesivir was associated with a 6% to 21.3% decrease in bed occupancy. Cost estimates for remdesivir ranged widely, from $10 to $780 for a 10-day course. In three out of four included economic evaluations, remdesivir treatment scenarios were cost-effective, ranging from ~ 8 to ~ 23% of the willingness-to-pay threshold for the respective country.ConclusionsEconomic evidence relating to remdesivir should be interpreted with consideration of the broader clinical context, including patients' characteristics and the timing of its administration. Nonetheless, remdesivir remains an important option for physicians in aiming to provide optimal care and relieve pressure on healthcare systems through shifting phases of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC9555695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ecological data often violate common assumptions of traditional parametric statistics (e.g., that residuals are Normally distributed, have constant variance, and cases are independent). Modern statistical methods are well equipped to handle these complications, but they can be challenging for non-statisticians to understand and implement. Rather than default to increasingly complex statistical methods, resampling-based methods can sometimes provide an alternative method for performing statistical inference, while also facilitating a deeper understanding of foundational concepts in frequentist statistics (e.g., sampling distributions, confidence intervals, p-values). Using simple examples and case studies, we demonstrate how resampling-based methods can help elucidate core statistical concepts and provide alternative methods for tackling challenging problems across a broad range of ecological applications.
| S-EPMC7211410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInclusion of productivity losses and gains in cost-effectiveness analyses for drugs is recommended by pharmacoeconomic guidelines in some countries and is considered optional in others. Often guidelines recommend analysis based on the payer perspective, but suggest that a supplemental analysis based on the societal perspective may be submitted that includes productivity losses/gains. However, there is no universally recognized framework for the approach to including productivity losses and gains in pharmacoeconomic analyses.ObjectivesThis study aimed to systematically review literature on cost-effectiveness analyses of drug interventions that included costs associated with productivity losses/gains and to summarize the types cost elements included and cost calculation methods employed. Moreover, this study examines variations in the calculation of productivity losses/gains by target disease type, geographic region, income group, period of analysis, and analysis time horizon-as well as the impact of their inclusion on the study outcomes.MethodsA search of three databases was performed, including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses that included indirect costs such as productivity losses/gains. Publications from January 2010 to October 2019 were examined and selected for inclusion by two independent reviewers. In addition to the citation details, data on the country of analysis, country income group, target disease area, study sponsorship, type of analysis, study design, time horizon, analysis perspective, productivity loss/gain elements included, the approach used to estimate productivity losses/gains, and the impact of their inclusion on the study outcome-namely the incremental cost effectiveness ratio-were extracted and summarized.ResultsThe search strategy identified 5038 unique studies, and 208 were included in the final analysis. Among the studies reviewed, 165 (79%) were conducted in high-income countries and 160 (77%) were conducted for North American and European/Central Asian countries. The productivity loss/gain elements included in the analysis were reported for 169 studies (81%). Absenteeism only was included for 98 studies (47%), and absenteeism plus presenteeism was included for 29 studies (14%). Absenteeism plus some other element such as costs associated with unemployment and/or early retirement was included for 32 studies (15%) examined. Only one out of four of the studies reviewed included information on the approach used to estimate productivity losses/gains, which was predominantly the human capital approach. One-hundred forty-four studies (69%) reported the impact of including productivity losses/gains on the ICER, with 110 studies (53%) reporting that their inclusion contributed to more favorable cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsAlthough inclusion of productivity losses/gains was shown to have a favorable impact on evaluations for many studies, their impact and method of calculation was often not reported or was unclear. Further examination and discussion is needed to consider the optimal framework for considering productivity losses/gains in cost-effectiveness analyses, including the appropriate cost elements to include (e.g., patient absenteeism, caregiver absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment, etc.) and how those costs should be estimated.
| S-EPMC7790765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.ResultsIn total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.
| S-EPMC6281264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Energy poverty is prevalent in resource-limited settings, leading households to use inefficient fuels and appliances that contribute to household air pollution. Randomized controlled trials of household energy interventions in low and middle income countries have largely focused on cooking services. Less is known about the adoption and impact of clean lighting interventions. We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study as part of a randomized controlled trial of home solar lighting systems in rural Uganda in order to identify contextual factors determining the use and impact of the solar lighting intervention. We used sensors to track usage, longitudinally assessed household lighting expenditures and health-related quality of life, and performed cost-effectiveness analyses. Qualitative interviews were conducted with all 80 trial participants and coded using reflexive thematic analysis. Uptake of the intervention solar lighting system was high with daily use averaging 8.23 ± 5.30 hours per day. The intervention solar lighting system increased the EQ5D index by 0.025 [95% CI 0.002 - 0.048] and led to an average monthly reduction in household lighting costs by -1.28 [-2.52, -0.85] US dollars, with higher savings in users of fuel-based lighting. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the solar lighting intervention was $2025.72 US dollars per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained making the intervention cost-effective when benchmarked against the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Uganda. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from individual interviews showed that solar lighting was transformative and associated with numerous benefits that fit within a Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) framework. The benefits included improved household finances, improved educational performance of children, increased household safety, improved family and community cohesion, and improved perceived household health. Our findings suggest that household solar lighting interventions may be a cost-effective approach to improve health-related quality of life by addressing SDOH.
| S-EPMC8923618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysician cost profiles (also called efficiency or economic profiles) compare the costs of care provided by a physician to his or her peers. These profiles are increasingly being used as the basis for policy applications such as tiered physician networks. Tiers (low, average, high cost) are currently defined by health plans based on percentile cut-offs which do not account for statistical uncertainty. In this paper we compare the percentile cut-off method to another method, using statistical testing, for identifying high-cost or low-cost physicians.MethodsWe created a claims dataset of 2004-2005 data from four Massachusetts health plans. We employed commercial software to create episodes of care and assigned responsibility for each episode to the physician with the highest proportion of professional costs. A physicians' cost profile was the ratio of the sum of observed costs divided by the sum of expected costs across all assigned episodes. We discuss a new method of measuring standard errors of physician cost profiles which can be used in statistical testing. We then assigned each physician to one of three cost categories (low, average, or high cost) using two methods, percentile cut-offs and a t-test (p-value < or = 0.05), and assessed the level of disagreement between the two methods.ResultsAcross the 8689 physicians in our sample, 29.5% of physicians were assigned a different cost category when comparing the percentile cut-off method and the t-test. This level of disagreement varied across specialties (17.4% gastroenterology to 45.8% vascular surgery).ConclusionsHealth plans and other payers should incorporate statistical uncertainty when they use physician cost-profiles to categorize physicians into low or high-cost tiers.
| S-EPMC2842268 | biostudies-literature