A general approach is discussed to assess the uncertainty surrounding the cost effectiveness ratio (C/E-ratio) estimated on the basis of data from a randomised clinical trial. The approach includes the calculation of a 95% probability ellipse and introduces the concept of a so called C/E-acceptability curve. This last curve defines for each predefined C/E-ratio the probability that the C/E-ratio found in the study is acceptable. The approach is illustrated by estimates of costs per life saved and costs per patient discharged alive on the basis of data from a phase II trial addressing the value of anakinra in treating sepsis syndrome.

No abstract

BackgroundPatients with substantive bleeding usually require transfusion and/or (re-)operation. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is independently associated with a greater risk of infection, morbidity, increased hospital stay and mortality. ROTEM (ROTEM®Delta, TEM International GmbH, Munich, Germany;www.rotem.de), TEG (TEG®5000 analyser, Haemonetics Corporation, Niles, IL, USA;www.haemonetics.com) and Sonoclot (Sonoclot®coagulation and platelet function analyser, Sienco Inc., Arvada, CO) are point-of-care viscoelastic (VE) devices that use thromboelastometry to test for haemostasis in whole blood. They have a number of proposed advantages over standard laboratory tests (SLTs): they provide a result much quicker, are able to identify what part of the clotting process is disrupted, and provide information on clot formation over time and fibrinolysis.ObjectivesThis assessment aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of VE devices to assist with the diagnosis, management and monitoring of haemostasis disorders during and after cardiac surgery, trauma-induced coagulopathy and post-partum haemorrhage (PPH).MethodsSixteen databases were searched to December 2013: MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily Update (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge), Science Citation Index (SCI) (Web of Science), Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI-S) (Web of Science), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA programme, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF), Medion, and the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Prediction studies were assessed using QUADAS-2. For RCTs, summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using random-effects models. Continuous data were summarised narratively. For prediction studies, the odds ratio (OR) was selected as the primary effect estimate. The health-economic analysis considered the costs and quality-adjusted life-years of ROTEM, TEG and Sonoclot compared with SLTs in cardiac surgery and trauma patients. A decision tree was used to take into account short-term complications and longer-term side effects from transfusion. The model assumed a 1-year time horizon.ResultsThirty-one studies (39 publications) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Eleven RCTs (n = 1089) assessed VE devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery; six assessed thromboelastography (TEG) and five assessed ROTEM. There was a significant reduction in RBC transfusion [RR 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.96; six studies], platelet transfusion (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89; six studies) and fresh frozen plasma to transfusion (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.65; five studies) in VE testing groups compared with control. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of other blood products transfused. Continuous data on blood product use supported these findings. Clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. There were no apparent differences between ROTEM or TEG; none of the RCTs evaluated Sonoclot. There were no data on the clinical effectiveness of VE devices in trauma patients or women with PPH. VE testing was cost-saving and more effective than SLTs. For the cardiac surgery model, the cost-saving was £43 for ROTEM, £79 for TEG and £132 for Sonoclot. For the trauma population, the cost-savings owing to VE testing were more substantial, amounting to per-patient savings of £688 for ROTEM compared with SLTs, £721 for TEG, and £818 for Sonoclot. This finding was entirely dependent on material costs, which are slightly higher for ROTEM. VE testing remained cost-saving following various scenario analyses.ConclusionsVE testing is cost-saving and more effective than SLTs, in both patients undergoing cardiac surgery and trauma patients. However, there were no data on the clinical effectiveness of Sonoclot or of VE devices in trauma patients.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005623.FundingThe NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

BackgroundA trade-off exists between building confidence in health-economic (HE) decision models and the use of scarce resources. We aimed to create a practical tool providing model users with a structured view into the validation status of HE decision models, to address this trade-off.MethodsA Delphi panel was organized, and was completed by a workshop during an international conference. The proposed tool was constructed iteratively based on comments from, and the discussion amongst, panellists. During the Delphi process, comments were solicited on the importance and feasibility of possible validation techniques for modellers, their relevance for decision makers, and the overall structure and formulation in the tool.ResultsThe panel consisted of 47 experts in HE modelling and HE decision making from various professional and international backgrounds. In addition, 50 discussants actively engaged in the discussion at the conference workshop and returned 19 questionnaires with additional comments. The final version consists of 13 items covering all relevant aspects of HE decision models: the conceptual model, the input data, the implemented software program, and the model outcomes.ConclusionsAssessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models (AdViSHE) is a validation-assessment tool in which model developers report in a systematic way both on validation efforts performed and on their outcomes. Subsequently, model users can establish whether confidence in the model is justified or whether additional validation efforts should be undertaken. In this way, AdViSHE enhances transparency of the validation status of HE models and supports efficient model validation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0327-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

One-year cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus ipratropium to treat chronic obstructive pulomonary disease. J.B. Oostenbrink, M.P.M.H. Rutten-van Mölken, M.J. Al, J.A. Van Noord, W. Vincken. #ERS Journals Ltd 2004. ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to assess the health economic consequences of substituting ipratropium with the new, once-daily bronchodilator tiotropium in patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).This prospective cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside two 1-yr randomised, double-blind clinical trials in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients had a diagnosis of COPD and a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) f65% predicted normal. Patients were randomised to tiotropium (18 mg once daily) or ipratropium (2 puffs of 20 mg administered four times daily) in a ratio of 2:1.The mean number of exacerbations was reduced from 1.01 in the ipratropium group (n=175) to 0.74 in the tiotropium group (n=344). The percentages of patients with a relevant improvement on the St. George9s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were 34.6% and 51.2% respectively. Compared to ipratropium, the number of hospital admissions, hospital days and unscheduled visits to healthcare providers was reduced by 46%, 42% and 36% respectively. Mean annual healthcare costs including the acquisition cost of the study drugs were J1721 (SEM 160) in the tiotropium group and J1,541 (SEM 163) in the ipratropium group (difference J180). Incremental costeffectiveness ratios were J667 per exacerbation avoided and J1084 per patient with a relevant improvement on the SGRQ.Substituting tiotropium for ipratropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients offers improved health outcomes and is associated with increased costs of J180 per patient per year.

Incomplete data due to premature withdrawal (dropout) constitute a serious problem in prospective economic evaluations that has received only little attention to date. The aim of this simulation study was to investigate how standard methods for dealing with incomplete data perform when applied to cost data with various distributions and various types of dropout. Selected methods included the product-limit estimator of Lin et al. the expectation maximisation (EM-) algorithm, several types of multiple imputation (MI) and various simple methods like complete case analysis and mean imputation. Almost all methods were unbiased in the case of dropout completely at random (DCAR), but only the product-limit estimator, the EM-algorithm and the MI approaches provided adequate estimates of the standard error (SE). The best estimates of the mean and SE for dropout at random (DAR) were provided by the bootstrap EM-algorithm, MI regression and MI Monte Carlo Markov chain. These methods were able to deal with skewed cost data in combination with DAR and only became biased when costs also included the costs of expensive events. None of the methods were able to deal adequately with informative dropout. In conclusion, the EM-algorithm with bootstrap, MI regression and MI MCMC are robust to the multivariate normal assumption and are the preferred methods for the analysis of incomplete cost data when the assumption of DCAR is not justified.

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms.MethodsTwenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC.ResultsWe included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5–93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population.LimitationsOnly one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods andnottheir comparative effectiveness.ConclusionsFaecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Purpose:To quantify the relationship between severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as expressed by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage and the annual exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD.Methods:We performed a systematic literature review to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies reporting the exacerbation frequency in COPD patients receiving usual care or placebo. Annual frequencies were determined for total exacerbations defined by an increased use of health care (event-based), total exacerbations defined by an increase of symptoms, and severe exacerbations defined by a hospitalization. The association between the mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)% predicted of study populations and the exacerbation frequencies was estimated using weighted log linear regression with random effects. The regression equations were applied to the mean FEV1% predicted for each GOLD stage to estimate the frequency per stage.Results:Thirty-seven relevant studies were found, with 43 reports of total exacerbation frequency (event-based, n = 19; symptom-based, n = 24) and 14 reports of frequency of severe exacerbations. Annual event-based exacerbation frequencies per GOLD stage were estimated at 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.46–1.49) for mild, 1.17 (0.93–1.50) for moderate, 1.61 (1.51–1.74) for severe, and 2.10 (1.51–2.94) for very severe COPD. Annual symptom-based frequencies were 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.67–2.07), 1.44 (1.14–1.87), 1.76 (1.70–1.88), and 2.09 (1.57–2.82), respectively. For severe exacerbations, annual frequencies were 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.02–0.56), 0.16 (0.07–0.33), 0.22 (0.20–0.23), and 0.28 (0.14–0.63), respectively. Study duration or type of study (cohort versus trial) did not significantly affect the outcomes.Conclusion:This study provides an estimate of the exacerbation frequency per GOLD stage, which can be used for health economic and modeling purposes.