Prognosis without treatment as a modifier in health economic assessments

A Primer on Health Economic Evaluations in Thoracic Oncology

There is growing interest for economic evaluation in oncology to illustrate the value of multiple new diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. As these analyses have started to move from specialist publications into mainstream medical literature, the wider medical audience consuming this information may need additional education to evaluate it appropriately. Here we review standard practices in economic evaluation, illustrating the different methods with thoracic oncology examples where possible. When interpreting and conducting health economic studies, it is important to appraise the method, perspective, time horizon, modeling technique, discount rate, and sensitivity analysis. Guidance on how to do this is provided. To provide a method to evaluate this literature, a literature search was conducted in spring 2015 to identify economic evaluations published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology. Articles were reviewed for their study design, and areas for improvement were noted. Suggested improvements include using more rigorous sensitivity analyses, adopting a standard approach to reporting results, and conducting complete economic evaluations. Researchers should design high-quality studies to ensure the validity of the results, and consumers of this research should interpret these studies critically on the basis of a full understanding of the methodologies used before considering any of the conclusions. As advancements occur on both the research and consumer sides, this literature can be further developed to promote the best use of resources for this field.

Inquiry into the relationship between equity weights and the value of the QALY

BACKGROUND

A commonly held view of the decision rule in economic evaluations in health care is that the final incremental cost-effectiveness ratio needs to be judged against some threshold, which is equal for all quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. This reflects the assumption that "a QALY is a QALY" no matter who receives it, or the equity notion that all QALY gains are equally valuable, regardless of the context in which they are realized. If such an assumption does not adequately reflect the distributional concerns in society, however, different thresholds could be used for different QALY gains, whose relative values can be seen as "equity weights."

AIM

Our aim was to explore the relationship between equity or distributional concerns and the social value of QALYs within the health economics literature. In light of the empirical interest in equity-related concerns as well as the nature and height of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, this study investigates the "common ground" between the two streams of literature and considers how the empirical literature estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold treats existing distributional considerations.

Germany's decision rule for setting ceiling prices of drugs: a comparative analysis with other decision rules

In Germany, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) makes recommendations for ceiling prices of drugs based on an evaluation of the relationship between costs and effectiveness. To set ceiling prices, IQWiG uses the following decision rule: the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a new drug compared with the next effective intervention should not be higher than that of the next effective intervention compared with its comparator. The purpose of this article is to analyse ethical implications of IQWiG's rule and compare them with those of two alternative decision rules, one that is based on an absolute cost-effectiveness threshold and one that falls in between. To this end, constrained optimization problems are defined that yield each decision rule. This article shows that IQWiG's rule accounts for severity of disease and past resource consumption. Potential problems and pitfalls are discussed.

Social time preferences for health and money elicited with a choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

In economic evaluations future health and monetary outcomes are commonly discounted at equal and constant rates. The theoretical foundation of this practice is being debated and appropriate discount rates for costs and health effects are sought. Here, we have derived social discount rates for health, money, and environmental benefits by means of a choice experiment.

METHODS

All choices were framed from a social perspective. We investigated differences in time preference by domain (health, monetary benefits, environmental benefits), time delay (5, 10, and 40 years), and respondent characteristics. Respondents were 173 health-care professionals and 34 health policymakers. Choice titration was used to determine when the respondent was indifferent between future and present benefits.

RESULTS

At least two-thirds of respondents preferred an intervention with immediate benefits to delayed benefits in the different domains. The median (mean) yearly discount rates for health benefits were 2.7% (10.7%), 1.3% (3.5%), and 1.1% (2.3%) assuming a 5, 10, and 40 years delay, respectively. Social time preference for monetary benefits was significantly stronger, with median (mean) yearly discount rates of 6.6% (18.7%) and 4.8% (11.2%) assuming a 5 and 10 years delay, respectively. The social time preference with regard to environmental benefits was similar to the monetary benefits. Social time preference for the different domains was significantly correlated at the individual level.

CONCLUSIONS

The empirically derived social time preference is in line with current theoretical arguments for a lower discount rate for health benefits than for monetary benefits. Moreover, the implied median discount rates for health were lower than those commonly used or advocated in guidelines.

The role of economic evaluation in the decision-making process of family physicians: design and methods of a qualitative embedded multiple-case study

Background

A considerable amount of resource allocation decisions take place daily at the point of the clinical encounter; especially in primary care, where 80 percent of health problems are managed. Ignoring economic evaluation evidence in individual clinical decision-making may have a broad impact on the efficiency of health services. To date, almost all studies on the use of economic evaluation in decision-making used a quantitative approach, and few investigated decision-making at the clinical level. An important question is whether economic evaluations affect clinical practice. The project is an intervention research study designed to understand the role of economic evaluation in the decision-making process of family physicians (FPs). The contributions of the project will be from the perspective of Pierre Bourdieu's sociological theory.

Methods/design

A qualitative research strategy is proposed. We will conduct an embedded multiple-case study design. Ten case studies will be performed. The FPs will be the unit of analysis. The sampling strategies will be directed towards theoretical generalization. The 10 selected cases will be intended to reflect a diversity of FPs. There will be two embedded units of analysis: FPs (micro-level of analysis) and field of family medicine (macro-level of analysis). The division of the determinants of practice/behaviour into two groups, corresponding to the macro-structural level and the micro-individual level, is the basis for Bourdieu's mode of analysis. The sources of data collection for the micro-level analysis will be 10 life history interviews with FPs, documents and observational evidence. The sources of data collection for the macro-level analysis will be documents and 9 open-ended, focused interviews with key informants from medical associations and academic institutions. The analytic induction approach to data analysis will be used. A list of codes will be generated based on both the original framework and new themes introduced by the participants. We will conduct within-case and cross-case analyses of the data.

Discussion

The question of the role of economic evaluation in FPs' decision-making is of great interest to scientists, health care practitioners, managers and policy-makers, as well as to consultants, industry, and society. It is believed that the proposed research approach will make an original contribution to the development of knowledge, both empirical and theoretical.

The impact of prognosis without treatment on doctors' and patients' resource allocation decisions and its relevance to new drug recommendation processes

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

The dominant health economic units upon which new treatment funding decisions are made are the incremental cost per life year gained (LYG) or the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Neither of these units modifies the amount of health gained, by the amount of health patients would have had if they had not been given the treatment under consideration, which may unfairly undervalue the treatments for poor prognosis conditions. How certain patients make decisions about their own treatment has previously been explored, but not how they, or doctors, would allocate hypothetical resource within a healthcare system given information on disease-treatment scenarios' prognoses with and without treatment.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Information on prognosis without treatment is used within the resource allocation strategies of many doctors and most patients. Individuals use this information in a variety of different ways and a single dominant strategy for quantitative modification of health units is not apparent. Information on prognosis without treatment, or prognosis with standard treatment, is available from the control arm of randomized controlled clinical trials and should be used qualitatively to facilitate decision-making around the second inflexion point on cost per QALY/LYG acceptability curves.

AIMS

Health economic assessments increasingly contribute to funding decisions on new treatments. Treatments for many poor prognosis conditions perform badly in such assessments because of high costs and modest effects on survival. We aimed to determine whether underlying shortness of prognosis should also be considered as a modifier in such assessments.

METHODS

Two hundred and eighty-three doctors and 201 oncology patients were asked to allocate treatment resource between hypothetical patients with unspecified life-shortening diseases. The prognoses with and without treatment were varied such that consistent use of one of four potential allocation strategies could be deduced: life years gained (LYGs) - which did not incorporate prognosis without treatment information; percentage increase in life years (PILY); life expectancy with treatment (LEWT) or immediate risk of death (IRD).

RESULTS

Random choices were rare; 47% and 64% of doctors and patients, respectively, used prognosis without treatment in their strategies; while 50% and 32%, respectively, used pure LYG-based strategies. Ranking orders were LYG > PILY > IRD > LEWT (doctors) and LEWT > LYG > IRD > PILY (patients). When LYG information alone could not be used, 76% of doctors prioritized shorter prognoses, compared with 45% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on prognosis without treatment is used within the resource allocation strategies of many doctors and most patients, and should be considered as a qualitative modifier during the health economic assessments of new treatments for life-shortening diseases. A single dominant strategy incorporating this information for any quantitative modification of health units is not apparent.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment

The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of £18 901 per patient relative to the comparator arm, with £11 802 attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was £42 975. The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was £57 608. The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population.

Complexity and reflexivity: two important issues for economic evaluation in health care

Economic evaluations are analytic techniques to assess the relative costs and consequences of health care programmes and technologies. Their role is to provide rigorous data to inform the health care decision-making process. Economic evaluation may oversimplify complex health care decisions. These analyses often ignore important health consequences, contextual elements, relationships or other relevant modifying factors, which might not be appropriate in a multi-objective, multi-stakeholder issue. One solution would be to develop a new paradigm based on the issues of perspective and context. Complexity theory may provide a useful conceptual framework for economic evaluation in health care. Complexity thinking develops an awareness of issues including uncertainty, contextual issues, multiple perspectives, broader societal involvement, and transdisciplinarity. This points the economic evaluation field towards an accountability and epistemology based on pluralism and uncertainty, requiring new forms of lay-expert engagement and roles of lay knowledge into decision-making processes. This highlights the issue of reflexivity in economic evaluation in health care. A reflexive approach would allow economic evaluators to analyze how objective structures and subjective elements influence their practices. In return, this would point increase the integrity and reliability of economic evaluations. Reflexivity provides opportunities for critically thinking about the organization and activities of the intellectual field, and perhaps the potential of moving in new, creative directions. This paper argues for economic evaluators to have a less positivist attitude towards what is useful knowledge, and to use more imagination about the data and methodologies they use.