Objectives: Decision makers adopt health technologies based on health economic models that are subject to uncertainty. In an ideal world, these models parameterize all uncertainties and reflect them in the cost-effectiveness probability and risk associated with the adoption. In practice, uncertainty assessment is often incomplete, potentially leading to suboptimal reimbursement recommendations and risk management. This study examines the feasibility of comprehensive uncertainty assessment in health economic models.Methods: A state transition model on peripheral arterial disease treatment was used as a case study. Uncertainties were identified and added to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis if possible. Parameter distributions were obtained by expert elicitation, and structural uncertainties were either parameterized or explored in scenario analyses, which were model averaged.Results: A truly comprehensive uncertainty assessment, parameterizing all uncertainty, could not be achieved. Expert elicitation informed 8 effectiveness, utility, and cost parameters. Uncertainties were parameterized or explored in scenario analyses and with model averaging. Barriers included time and resource constraints, also of clinical experts, and lacking guidance regarding some aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The team's multidisciplinary expertise and existing literature and tools were facilitators.Conclusions: While comprehensive uncertainty assessment may not be attainable, improvements in uncertainty assessment in general are no doubt desirable. This requires the development of detailed guidance and hands-on tutorials for methods of uncertainty assessment, in particular aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The issue of benefits of uncertainty assessment versus time and resources needed remains unclear.

Background Dual pathway inhibition with 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily may be a promising alternative to 100 mg aspirin antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and/or peripheral arterial disease. However, treatment costs and bleeding risks are higher, and there is another treatment option for peripheral arterial disease, 75 mg clopidogrel. A comprehensive assessment of benefits, risks and costs of dual pathway inhibition versus standard of care is needed. Methods We used a state transition model including cardiovascular, ischaemic limb and bleeding events to compare dual pathway inhibition to aspirin antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease, and additionally to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy in peripheral arterial disease patients. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from costs and quality-adjusted life-years of lifelong treatment, and the cost-effectiveness probability at a €50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. Results Quality-adjusted life-years and costs of dual pathway inhibition were highest, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios versus aspirin were €32,109 in coronary artery disease and €26,381 in peripheral arterial disease patients, with 92% and 56% cost-effectiveness probability, respectively (clopidogrel was extendedly dominated). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below €20,000 in comorbid peripheral arterial disease patients and coronary artery disease patients younger than 65 years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were above €50,000 in carotid artery disease patients and coronary artery disease patients older than 75 years. Conclusion Lifelong preventive treatment of coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial disease patients at risk of cardiovascular events with dual pathway inhibition improves health outcomes and seems overall cost-effective relative to aspirin antiplatelet therapy and also to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy for peripheral arterial disease, particularly in comorbid patients, but not in older patients and in carotid artery disease patients. These findings may warrant a targeted approach.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo ®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.

Background Up to 31% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) discontinue treatment with disease-modifying drug (DMD) within the first year, and of the patients who do continue, about 40% are nonadherent. Shared decision making may decrease nonadherence and discontinuation rates, but evidence in the context of RRMS is limited. Shared decision making may, however, come at additional costs. This study aimed to explore the potential cost-effectiveness of shared decision making for RRMS in comparison with usual care, from a (limited) societal perspective over a lifetime. Methods An exploratory economic evaluation was conducted by adapting a previously developed state transition model that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a range of DMDs for RRMS in comparison with the best supportive care. Three potential effects of shared decision making were explored: 1) a change in the initial DMD chosen, 2) a decrease in the patient’s discontinuation in using the DMD, and 3) an increase in adherence to the DMD. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of a scenario that combined the 3 effects were conducted. Results Each effect separately and the 3 effects combined resulted in higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs due to the increased utilization of DMD. A decrease in discontinuation of DMDs influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) most. The combined scenario resulted in an ICER of €17,875 per QALY gained. The ICER was sensitive to changes in several parameters. Conclusion This study suggests that shared decision making for DMDs could potentially be cost-effective, especially if shared decision making would help to decrease treatment discontinuation. Our results, however, may depend on the assumed effects on treatment choice, persistence, and adherence, which are actually largely unknown.