Incorporation of genuine prior information in cost-effectiveness analysis of clinical trial data

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 782-790

  Stevens, John W ^a   O'Hagan, Anthony ^b  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian statistics; Clinical trials; Cost effectiveness; Prior information

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH SERVICE; INFORMATION; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 0036767312     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462302000594     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. A format for submission of clinical and economic data in support of formulary consideration by managed health care systems in the United States. Available at: http://www.amcp.org/publications.
2. Ashby D, Smith AFM. Evidence-based medicine as Bayesian decision-making. Stat Med. 2000;19:3291-3202.
3. Australia Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on the preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including major submissions involving economic analysis. Canberra: Australia Government Publishing Service; 1995.
4. Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 1999;8:257-261.
5. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 1997.
6. Chaloner KM, Church T, Louis TA, et al. Graphical elicitation of a prior distribution for a clinical trial. The Statistician. 1993;42:341-353.
7. Chaloner KM, Rhame F. Quantifying and documenting prior beliefs in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2001;20:581-600.
8. Fayers PM, Cuschieri A, Fielding J, et al. Sample size calculation for clinical trials: The impact of clinician beliefs. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:213-219.
9. Heitjan DF. Bayesian interim analysis of Phase II cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 1997;16:1791-1802.
10. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Statistical principles for clinical trials 1998. ICH.E9. Available at: http://www.ifpma.org/ich1.html.
11. Kadane JB, Wolfson LJ. Experiences in elicitation. The Statistician. 1998;47:3-19 (discussion: 55-68).
12. Kass RE, Greenhouse JB. Comments on "Investigating therapies of potentially great benefit: ECMO" by JH Ware. Stat Sci. 1989;4:310-317.
13. Kass RE, Wasserman L. The selection of prior distributions by formal rules. JAMA. 1996;91:1343-1370.
14. Liljas B, Ståhl, Pauwels RA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dry-powder inhaler (Turbuhaler®) versus a pressurized metered dose inhaler in patients with asthma. PharmacoEconomics. 1997;12:267-277.
15. Luce BR, Shih Y-CT, Claxton K. Introduction: Bayesian approaches to technology assessment and decision making. Int Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:1-5.
16. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors. 2001. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/.
17. O'Hagan A. Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications. The Statistician. 1998;47:21-35 (discussion: 55-68).
18. O'Hagan A, Stevens JW. A framework for cost-effectiveness from clinical trial data. Health Econ. 2001;10:302-315.
19. Parmar MKB, Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS. The CHART trials: Bayesian design and monitoring in practice. Stat Med. 1994;13:1297-1312.
20. Pauwels RA, Hargreave FE, Camus P, et al. A one-year comparison of Turbuhaler® versus pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in asthmatic patients. Chest. 1996;110:53-57.
21. Sheingold SH. Can Bayesian methods make data and analyses more relevant to decision makers? A perspective from Medicare. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:114-122.
22. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10:227-303.