The Library

Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling : design, conduct, analysis, and reporting

Tools

Petrou, Stavros and Gray, Alastair, 1953-. (2011) Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling : design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ, Vol.342 . d1766. ISSN 0959-8138

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Petrou_bmj.d1766.full.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (331Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1766

Abstract

Economic evaluations are increasingly conducted alongside randomised controlled trials, providing researchers with individual patient data to estimate cost effectiveness. However, randomised trials do not always provide a sufficient basis for economic evaluations used to inform regulatory and reimbursement decisions. For example, a single trial might not compare all the available options, provide evidence on all relevant inputs, or be conducted over a long enough time to capture differences in economic outcomes (or even measure those outcomes). In addition, reliance on a single trial may mean ignoring evidence from other trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies. Under these circumstances, decision analytical modelling provides an alternative framework for economic evaluation. Decision analytical modelling compares the expected costs and consequences of decision options by synthesising information from multiple sources and applying mathematical techniques, usually with computer software. The aim is to provide decision makers with the best available evidence to reach a decision—for example, should a new drug be adopted? Following on from our article on trial based economic evaluations, we outline issues relating to the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of economic evaluations using decision analytical modelling.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA76 Electronic computers. Computer science. Computer software R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Medical economics, Clinical trials, Medical care, Cost of -- Research, Research -- Methodology, Information modeling, Decision trees
Journal or Publication Title:	BMJ
Publisher:	BMJ Group
ISSN:	0959-8138
Date:	11 April 2011
Volume:	Vol.342
Page Range:	d1766
Identification Number:	10.1136/bmj.d1766
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	Medical Research Council (Great Britain) (MRC)
References:	1 Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised clinical trials: design, conduct, analysis and reporting. BMJ 2011;342:d1548. 2 Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Drummond M, McCabe C. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006;15:677-87. 3 Briggs A, Claxton C, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation . Oxford University Press, 2006. 4 Gray A, Clarke P, Wolstenholme J, Wordsworth S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care . Oxford University Press, 2010. 5 Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess 2005;21:165-71. 6 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes . 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, 2005. 7 Bojke L, Hornby E, Sculpher M. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy or surgery (laparoscopic fundoplication) in the treatment of GORD. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25:829-41. 8 Legood R, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, Moss S, LBC/HPV Cervical Screening Pilot Studies Group. The lifetime effects, costs and cost-effectiveness of using HPV testing to manage low-grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ 2006;332:79-83. 9 Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:559-75. 10 Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006;15:1295-310. 11 Cooper K, Brailsford SC, Davies R. Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions. J Oper Res Soc 2007;58:168-76. 12 Brisson M, Edmunds WJ. Economic evaluation of vaccination programs: the impact of herd-immunity. Med Decis Making 2003;23:76-82. 13 Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004;9:110-8. 14 Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—modeling studies. Value Health 2003;6:9-17. 15 NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews . NHS CRD, University of York, 2001. 16 Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:iii-xi,1. 17 Golder S, Glanville J, Ginnelly L. Populating decision-analytic models: the feasibility and efficiency of database searching for individual parameters. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:305-11. 18 Coyle D, Lee LM. The problem of protocol driven costs in pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;14:357-63. 19 Ades AE, Sutton A. Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making: current approaches. J R Stat Soc 2006;169:5-35. 20 Weinstein MC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1043-53. 21 Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13:405-15. 22 Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Farmer A, Fenn P, Stevens R, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) outcomes model. Diabetologia 2004;47:1747-59. 23 Mount Hood. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the fourth Mount Hood challenge meeting. Diabetes Care 2007;30:1638-46. 24 Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health 2009;12:739-49. 25 Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365:176-86. 26 Mihaylova B, Briggs A, Armitage J, Parish S, Gray A, Collins R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in people at different levels of vascular disease risk: a randomised trial in 20 536 individuals. Lancet 2005;365:1779-85. 27 Mihaylova B, Briggs A, Armitage J, Parish S, Gray, A, Collins R. Lifetime cost effectiveness of simvastatin in a range of risk groups and age groups derived from a randomised trial of 20 536 people. BMJ 2006;333:1145-8. 28 Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:355-71. 29 Stout NK, Knudsen AB, Kong CK, McMahon PM, Gazelle GS. Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 2009;27:533-45. 30 Ades AE, Cliffe S. Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of a multi-parameter decision model: consistency of evidence and the accurate assessment of uncertainty. Med Decis Making 2002;22:359-71. 31 Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS health technology assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1-103,iii. 32 Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S. The half-life of truth: appropriate time horizons for research decisions? Med Decis Making 2008;28:287-99. 33 Speight PM, Palmer S, Moles DR, Downer MC, Smith DH, Henriksson M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care. Health Technol Assess 2006;10:1-144,iii-iv. 34 Castelnuovo E, Thompson-Coon J, Pitt M, Cramp M, Siebert U, Price A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of testing for hepatitis C in former injecting drug users. Health Technol Assess 2006;10:iii-iv,ix-xii,1-93.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/37058