Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 16, Issue 46, 2012, Pages

  Claxton, K ^a   Palmer, S ^a   Longworth, L ^b   Bojke, L ^a   Griffin, S ^a   McKenna, C ^a   Soares, M ^a   Spackman, E ^a   Youn, J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HEALTH PROGRAM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EVIDENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLICY; UNITED KINGDOM;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GREAT BRITAIN; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; POLICY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84870827004     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta16460     Document Type: Review

References (238)

1. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
2. Tunis S, Pearson S. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's 'coverage with evidence development'. Health Aff 2006;25:1218-30.
3. Chalkidou K, Hoy A, Littlejohns P. Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med 2007;100:453-60.
4. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:425-35.
5. Tunis S, Chalkidou K. Coverage with evidence development: a very good beginning, but much to be done. Commentary to Hutton et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:432-5.
6. Eckermann S, Willan AR. The option value of delay in health technology assessment. Med Decis Making 2008;28:300-5.
7. Palmer S, Smith P. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 2000;19:755-66.
8. Stafinski T, McCabe CJ, Menon D. Funding the unfundable: mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:113-42.
9. Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. London: HM Treasury; 2006.
10. House of Commons Health Committee. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry: fourth report of session 2004-2005. London: The Stationary Office; 2005.
11. NICE Citizens Council. 'Only in research'. London: NICE; 2007.
12. Office of Fair Trading (OFT). The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. An OFT market study. London: OFT; 2007.
13. Brezis M, Lehmann LS. Medicare requirement for research participation. JAMA 2006;296:2924.
14. Gafni A, Birch S. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: when costing less means costing more. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25:523-8; author reply 528-32.
15. Goeree R, O'Reilly D, Tarride JE, Bowen JM, Blackhouse G, Campbell K, et al. Being led down the wrong garden PATH: the importance of knowledge and facts for the crossroads. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25:528-32.
16. Groeneveld PW. Medicare requirement for research participation. JAMA 2006;296:2923-4.
17. Bowen JM, Patterson LL, O'Reilly D, Hopkins RB, Blackhouse G, Burke N, et al. Conditionally funded field evaluations and practical trial design within a health technology assessment framework. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6:324-31.
18. Briggs A, Ritchie K, Fenwick E, Chalkidou K, Littlejohns P. Access with evidence development in the UK: past experience, current initiatives and future potential. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:163-70.
19. Carbonneil C, Quentin F, Lee-Robin SH, European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). A common policy framework for evidence generation on promising health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl. 2):56-67.
20. Goeree R, Levin L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework-an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1143-56.
21. McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R, Menon D. Access with evidence development schemes: a framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:143-52.
22. Miller W. Value-based coverage policy in the United States and the United Kingdom: different paths to a common goal. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum; 2006.
23. Towse A, Garrison LP, Jr. Can't get no satisfaction? Will pay for performance help?: toward an economic framework for understanding performance-based risk-sharing agreements for innovative medical products. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:93-102.
24. Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26:79-85.
25. Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy 2010;96:179-90.
26. Chalmers I. Addressing uncertainties about the effects of treatments offered to NHS patients: whose responsibility? J R Soc Med 2007;100:440-1.
27. Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD. Evidence, economics, and emphysema: Medicare's long journey with lung volume reduction surgery. Health Aff 2005;24:55-66.
28. Wallner P, Konski A. A changing paradigm in the study and adoption of emerging health care technologies: coverage with evidence development. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5:1125-9.
29. Chalkidou K, Lord J, Fischer A, Littlejohns P. Evidence-based decision making: when should we wait for more information? Health Aff 2008;27:1642-53.
30. Tunis S, Whicher D. The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6:360-5.
31. Medicare's coverage with evidence development: a policy-making tool in evolution. J Oncol Pract 2007;3:296-301.
32. Kamerow D. Paying for promising but unproven technologies: is the policy on 'coverage with evidence development' a helpful way forward? BMJ 2007;335:965.
33. Mohr PE, Tunis SR. Access with evidence development: the US experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:153-62.
34. Carino T, Williams RD II, Colbert AM, Bridger P. Medicare's coverage of colorectal cancer drugs: a case study in evidence development and policy. Health Aff 2006;25:1231-9.
35. Brice J. Imaging research efforts place focus on clinical effectiveness. Research to Practice. 2008. URL: www.diagnosticimaging.com/display/article/113619/1180672.
36. Breckenridge A, Walley T. Risk sharing and payment by results. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;83:666-7.
37. Carino T, Sheingold S, Tunis S. Using clinical trials as a condition of coverage: lessons from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. Clinical Trials 2004;1:108-21.
38. Dhalla IA, Garner S, Chalkidou K, Littlejohns P. Perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:272-80.
39. Garber A. Is having more preapproval data the best way to assure drug safety? Health Aff 2008;5:371-3.
40. Krich TB. CMS new coverage with evidence policy. J BioLaw Bus 2007;10:43-4.
41. Lindsay MJ, Siegel BA, Tunis SR, Hillner BE, Shields AF, Carey BP, et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded Medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1109-13.
42. Macdonald F. Coverage with evidence development: a personal, industry view. Presentation slides. 19 September 2008. URL: www.docstoc.com/docs/105704904/Coverage-With-Evidence-Development.
43. Menon D, McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R, signatories to the Consensus Statement. Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches: a consensus statement from the Banff Summit. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:109-11.
44. Neumann PJ, Kamae MS, Palmer JA. Medicare's national coverage decisions for technologies, 1999-2007. Health Aff 2008;27:1620-31.
45. Niezen M, de Bont A, Stolk E, Eyek A, Niessen L, Stoevalaar H. Conditional reimbursement with the Dutch drug policy. Health Policy 2007;84:39-50.
46. Pearson SD, Miller FG, Emanuel EJ. Medicare's requirement for research participation as a condition of coverage: is it ethical? JAMA 2006;296:988-91.
47. Reed S, Shea A, Schulman K. Economic implications of potential changes to regulatory and reimbursement policies for medical devices. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:50-6.
48. Straube BM. How changes in the Medicare coverage process have facilitated the spread of new technologies. Health Aff 2005;(Suppl. Web Exclusives):W5-314-W5-316.
49. Thornton S. Drug price reform in the UK: debunking the myths. Health Econ 2007;16:981-92.
50. Whalley GA, Gamble GD, Walsh HJ, Wright SP, Agewall S, Sharpe N, et al. Effect of tissue harmonic imaging and contrast upon between observer and test-retest reproducibility of left ventricular ejection fraction measurement in patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2004;6:85-93.
51. NICE and AHRQ. Managing uncertainty in healthcare. Report of a meeting organised by NICE and AHRQ. 2008. URL: www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/researchanddevelopment/managinguncertaintyinhealthcare.jsp.
52. Department of Health. Faster access to modern treatment: how NICE appraisal will work. London: Department of Health; 1999.
53. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. Coverage with evidence development in NHS Scotland. Discussion paper. Edinburgh: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2008.
54. Office for Life Sciences, HM Government. Life sciences blueprint. A statement from the Office for Life Sciences. July 2009. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; 2009.
55. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare and Medicaid programs; conditions for coverage for organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Final rule. Fed Regist 2006;71:30981-1054.
56. Mechanic R, Zinner D. Optimizing information under coverage with evidence development. Health Industry Forum Policy Brief. 24 October 2007. Waltham, MA: The Health Industry Forum; 2007.
57. Slutsky J. CED for promising technologies: USA. Paper presented at HTAi 2008, Montreal, Canada, July 2008.
58. Sansom L. Medicines use: what's next for the PBS. Presentation slides.
59. Chalkidou K. 'Only in research': a polite 'no' or a valuable policy option? Birmingham: NICE; 2006.
60. Reeves B. Verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT) cohort study for the UK 'coverage with evidence development'. Paper presented at HTAi 2008, Montreal, Canada, July 2008.
61. Garrison L, Sullivan S, Carlson J, Bresnahan B, Carlson R, Neumann P, et al. Performancebased risk-sharing reimbursement agreements for new medical products. Washington, DC: University of Washington; 2008.
62. Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, Claxton K, Buxton M, Akehurst R, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:56-8.
63. Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. On the (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991;7:12-21.
64. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998;18:S68-80.
65. Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton M, Culyer A, McCabe C, Walker S, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ 2008;336:251-4.
66. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:733-44.
67. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:342-64.
68. Claxton K, Cohen J, Neumann P. When is evidence sufficient? Health Aff 2005;24:93-101.
69. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002;360:711-15.
70. Griffin SC, Claxton KP, Palmer SJ, Sculpher MJ. Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Health Econ 2011;20:212-24.
71. Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S. The half-life of truth: what are appropriate time horizons for research decisions? Med Decis Making 2008;28:287-99.
72. Eckermann S, Willan A. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ 2006;16:195-209.
73. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making 2008;28:21-32.
74. Hoomans T, Fenwick EA, Palmer S, Claxton K. Value of information and value of implementation: application of an analytic framework to inform resource allocation decisions in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health 2009;12:315-24.
75. McKenna C, Claxton K. Addressing adoption and research design decisions simultaneously: the role of value of sample information analysis. Med Decis Making 2011;31:853-65.
76. Basu A. Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care. J Health Econ 2011;30:549-59.
77. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Carroll S. Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: its role, specification and prospects in a newly devolved NHS. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2011.
78. Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. London: Department of Health; 2010.
79. Department of Health. A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: government response to consultation. London: Department of Health; 2010.
80. Claxton K. OFT, VBP: QED? Health Econ 2007;16:545-58.
81. Department of Health. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. London: Department of Health; 2008.
82. Chalkidou K, Walley T, Culyer A, Littlejohns P, Hoy A. Evidence-informed evidence-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008;13:167-73.
83. NICE. Social value judgements guideline. Principles for the development of NICE guidance. London: NICE; 2008.
84. Kumar A, Soares H, Wells R, Clarke M, Hozo I, Bleyer A, et al. Are experimental treatments for cancer in children superior to established treatments? Observational study of randomised controlled trials by the Children's Oncology Group. BMJ 2005;331:1295.
85. Levine RJ. The 'best proven therapeutic method' standard in clinical trials in technologically developing countries. IRB 1998;20:5-9.
86. NICE. Process for advising on the feasibility of implementing a patient access scheme. London: NICE; 2009.
87. Department of Health. Health service circular 2002/004-cost effective provision of disease modifying therapies for people with multiple sclerosis. London: Department of Health; 2002.
88. NICE. The use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. TA5. London: NICE; 2003.
89. NICE. Infliximab for acute exacerbations of ulcerative colitis. TA163. London: NICE; 2008.
90. NICE. Hearing disability-hearing aids (withdrawn). TA8. London: NICE; 2000.
91. NICE. Inhaled insulin for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. TA113. London: NICE; 2006.
92. NICE. Guidance on the use of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. TA36. London: NICE; 2002.
93. NICE. Guidance on the use of patient-education models for diabetes. TA60. London: NICE; 2003.
94. NICE. Guidance on the use of photodynamic therapy for age-related muscular degeneration. TA68. London: NICE; 2003.
95. NICE. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety: guidance. TA97. London: NICE; 2006.
96. NICE. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (CCBT) for the treatment of depression and anxiety. TA51. London: NICE; 2002.
97. NICE. Rituximab for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. TA65. London: NICE; 2003.
98. NICE. Guidance on the use of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. TA44. London: NICE; 2002.
99. NICE. Interferon alfa (pegylated and non-pegylated) and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. TA75. London: NICE; 2004.
100. NICE. Lymphoma (follicular non-Hodgkin's)-rituximab. TA37. London: NICE; 2002.
101. NICE. Endovascular stent-grafts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. TA167. London: NICE; 2009.
102. NICE. The use of autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of cartilage defects in knee joints. TA89. London: NICE; 2005.
103. NICE. Bortezomib monotherapy for relapsed multiple myeloma. TA129. London: NICE; 2007.
104. NICE. Cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults. TA166. London: NICE; 2009.
105. NICE. Taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer. TA6. London: NICE; 2000.
106. NICE. Guidance on the use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. TA33. London: NICE; 2002.
107. NICE. Cervical cancer-cervical screening (review). TA69. London: NICE; 2003.
108. NICE. Taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer. TA30. London: NICE; 2001.
109. NICE. Knee joints (defective)-autologous cartilage transplantation: guidance. TA16. London: NICE; 2000.
110. NICE. Guidance on the use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. TA17. London: NICE; 2000.
111. NICE. Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. TA105. London: NICE; 2006.
112. NICE. Advanced breast cancer: NICE guideline. CG81. London: NICE; 2009.
113. NICE. Colorectal cancer (advanced)-irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed. TA93. London: NICE; 2005.
114. NICE. Rheumatoid arthritis-adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. TA93. London: NICE; 2007.
115. NICE. Rituximab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. TA137. London: NICE; 2008.
116. NICE. Rheumatoid arthritis-anakinra. TA72. London: NICE; 2003.
117. NICE. Rheumatoid arthritis: the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. CG79. London: NICE; 2009.
118. NICE. Supplementary guidance to the appraisal committees: appraising life-extending, end of life treatment; 2009. URL: www.nice.org.uk (accessed 18 February 2011).
119. NICE. Report to the NICE board: update report on the application of the 'end-of-life' supplementary advice in health technology appraisals; 2009. URL: www.nice.org.uk (accessed 18 February 2011).
120. NICE. Research recommendations process and methods guide. London: NICE; 2011.
121. McKenna C, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Hawkins N, Claxton K, Light K, et al. Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(24).
122. NICE. Clopidogrel in the treatment of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome. TA80. London: NICE; 2004.
123. NICE. Unstable angina and NSTEMI: the early management of unstable angina and non-STsegment-elevation myocardial infarction. CG94. London: NICE; 2010.
124. NICE. Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6 to 11 years. NICE technology appraisal guidance 201. London: NICE; 2010. URL: www.nice.org. uk/nicemedia/live/13256/51345/51345.pdf (accessed 22 July 2011).
125. NICE. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. TA199. London: NICE; 2010.
126. NICE. Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. TA104. London: NICE; 2006.
127. Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;926:781-98.
128. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, Briggs AH, Akehurst R, Buxton M, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005;14:339-47.
129. Claxton K, Sculpher M. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1055-68.
130. Price MJ, Welton NJ, Briggs AH, Ades AE. Model averaging in the presence of structural uncertainty about treatment effects: influence on treatment decision and expected value of information. Value Health 2011;14:205-18.
131. Griffin S, Welton N, Claxton K. Exploring the research decision space: the expected value of information for sequential research designs. Med Decis Making 2010;30:155-62.
132. Bujkiewicz S, Jones HE, Lai MC, Cooper NJ, Hawkins N, Squires H, et al. Development of a transparent interactive decision interrogator to facilitate the decision-making process in health care. Value Health 2011;14:768-76.
133. Kary W, Bergthold L, Talbott M, Aubry W. Coverage for evidence development: a conceptual frame. Baltimore, MD: Center for Medical Technology Policy; January 2009.
134. NICE. Guidance on the selection of prostheses for primary total hip replacement. TA2. London: NICE; 2000.
135. NICE. Guidance on the use of temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma (brain cancer). TA23. London: NICE; 2001.
136. NICE. Etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. TA35. London: NICE; 2002.
137. NICE. Imatinib for chronic myeloid leukaemia. TA50. London: NICE; 2002.
138. NICE. Guidance on the use of imatinib for chronic myeloid leukaemia. TA70. London: NICE; 2003.
139. NICE. Imatinib for the treatment of unresectable and/or metastatic gastro-intestinal stromal tumours. TA86. London: NICE; 2004.
140. NICE. HealOzone for the treatment of tooth decay (occlusal pit and fissure caries and root caries). TA92. London: NICE; 2005.
141. NICE. Immunosuppressive therapy for renal transplantation in children and adolescents. TA99. London: NICE; 2006.
142. NICE. Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. TA111. London: NICE; 2007. TA121
143. NICE. Carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high grade glioma. TA121. London: NICE; 2007.
144. NICE. Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of mesothelioma. TA135. London: NICE. TA135. London: NICE; 2008.
145. NICE. Erythropoetin (alpha and beta) and darbepoetin for the treatment of cancer-treatment induced anaemia. TA142. London: NICE; 2008.
146. NICE. Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis. TA143. London: NICE; 2008.
147. NICE. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin. TA159. London: NICE; 2008.
148. Rogowski W, Burch J, Palmer S, Craigs C, Golder S, Woolacott N. The effect of different treatment durations of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(31).
149. Shuchman M. Delaying generic competition-corporate payoffs and the future of Plavix. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1297-300.
150. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151-85.
151. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
152. Briggs AH, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
153. Felli JC, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making 1998;18:95-109.
154. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research prioritysetting. Health Econ 1996;5:513-24.
155. Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decisionanalytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health 2009;12:739-49.
156. Hoeting JA, Madigan D, Raftery AE, Volinsky CT. Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial. Stat Sci 1999;14:382-417.
157. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making 2004;24:207-27.
158. Willan A, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ 2010;19:549-61.
159. Allender S, Peto V, Scarborough P, Boxer A, Rayner M. Morbidity. Coronary heart disease statistics. 15th edn. London: British Heart Foundation; 2007.
160. Arora R, Chou T, Jain D, Fleishman B, Crawford L, McKiernan T, et al. The multicenter study of enhanced external counterpulsation (MUST-EECP): effect of EECP on exercise-induced myocardial ischemia and anginal episodes. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:1833-40.
161. Arora R, Chou T, Jain D, Fleishman B, Crawford L, McKiernan T, et al. Effects of enhanced external counterpulsation on health-related quality of life continue 12 months after treatment: a substudy of the Multicenter Study of Enhanced External Counterpulsation. J Investig Med 2002;50:25-32.
162. Lawson WE, Hui JCK, Soroff HS, Zheng ZS, Kayden DS, Sasvary D, et al. Efficacy of enhanced external counterpulsation in the treatment of angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1992;70:859-62.
163. Lawson WE, Hui JCK, Zheng ZS, Oster Z, Katz JP, Diggs P, et al. Three-year sustained benefit from enhanced external counterpulsation in chronic angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1995;75:840-1.
164. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of stable angina: a national clinical guideline. SIGN guideline no. 96. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2007.
165. Sinvhal RM, Gowda RM, Khan IA. Enhanced external counterpulsation for refractory angina pectoris. Heart 2003;89:830-3.
166. Bonetti PO, Holmes DR, Jr, Lerman A, Barsness GW. Enhanced external counterpulsation for ischemic heart disease: what's behind the curtain? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1918-25.
167. O'Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, et al. Uncertain judgements. Eliciting experts' probabilities. Chichester: Wiley; 2006.
168. van Noortwijk JM, Dekker A, Cooke RM, Mazzuchi TA. Expert judgment in maintenance optimization. IEEE Trans Reliabil 1992;41:427-32.
169. Cooke RM. Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1991.
170. Briggs A, Mihaylova B, Sculpher M, Hall A, Wolstenholme J, Simoons M, et al. Cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study. Heart 2007;93:1081-6.
171. Office for National Statistics. Interim life tables. 2007. URL: www.gad.gov.uk/Demography%20Data/Life%20Tables/Interim_life_tables.html (accessed 23 June 2011).
172. Michaels A, Barsness G, Soran O, Kelsey S, Kennard E, Hui J, et al. Frequency and efficacy of repeat enhanced external counterpulsation for stable angina pectoris (from the International EECP Patient Registry). Am J Cardiol 2005;95:394-7.
173. Vasogenics price list (effective from April 2007).
174. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Centre for Health Technology Evaluation. Evaluation pathway programme for medical technologies. London: NICE; 2010. URL: www.nice.org.uk/media/5C8/62/ProductsConsideredByMTAC220211.pdf (accessed 10 December 2010).
175. Main C, Palmer S, Griffin S, Jones L, Orton V, Sculpher M, et al. Clopidogrel used in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of non-ST-segmentelevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(40).
176. Peters RJ, Mehta SR, Fox KAA, Zhao F, Lewis BS, Kopecky SL, et al. Effects of aspirin dose when used alone or in combination with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: observations from the Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) study. Circulation 2003;108:1682-7.
177. Morais J. Insights from CURE: using clopidogrel on top of standard therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis 2002;13(Suppl. 1):17-21.
178. Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Zhao F, Gersh BJ, Commerford PJ, Blumenthal M, et al. Early and late effects of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2003;107:966-72.
179. Budaj A, Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Fox KAA, Tognoni G, Zhao F, et al. Benefit of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation in various risk groups. Circulation 2002;106:1622-6.
180. Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Tognoni G, Fox KAA, et al. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2001;345:494-502.
181. Keltai M, Tonelli M, Mann JF, Sitkei E, Lewis BS, Hawken S, et al. Renal function and outcomes in acute coronary syndrome: impact of clopidogrel. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007;14:312-18.
182. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Acute coronary syndromes: a national clinical guideline. SIGN guideline no. 93. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2007.
183. Karnon J, Bakhai A, Brennan A, Pandor A, Flather M, Warren E, et al. A cost-utility analysis of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes in the UK. Int J Cardiol 2006;109:307-16.
184. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British national formulary. No. 54, September 2007. London: BMA and RPS; 2007.
185. Collinson, J, Flather MD, Fox KAA, Findlay I, Rodrigues E, Dooley P, et al. Clinical outcomes, risk stratification and practice patterns of unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST elevation: Prospective Registry of Acute Ischaemic Syndromes in the UK (PRAIS-UK). Eur Heart J 2000;21:1450-7.
186. Lanier B, Bridges T, Kulus M, Taylor AF, Berhane I, Vidaurre CF. Omalizumab for the treatment of exacerbations in children with inadequately controlled allergic (IgE-mediated) asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124:1210-16.
187. Asthma UK. For journalists: key facts & statistics. 2010. URL: www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_resources/for_journalists_key.html (accessed 3 June 2011).
188. Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd. Xolair (omalizumab) for severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-<12 years. Manufacturer submission of evidence. Single technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2010.
189. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). British guideline on the management of asthma; a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2009.
190. Walker S, Burch J, McKenna C, Wright K, Griffin S, Woolacott N. Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6 to 11 years. Evidence review group report. London: NICE; 2010.
191. Dewilde S, Turk F, Tambour M, Sandstrom T. The economic value of anti-IgE in severe persistent, IgE-mediated (allergic) asthma patients: adaptation of INNOVATE to Sweden. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1765-76.
192. Humbert M, Beasley R, Ayres J, Slavin R, Hebert J, Bousquet J, et al. Benefits of omalizumab as add-on therapy in patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite best available therapy (GINA 2002 step 4 treatment): INNOVATE. Allergy 2005;60:309-16.
193. Watson L, Turk F, James P, Holgate ST. Factors associated with mortality after an asthma admission: a national United Kingdom database analysis. Respir Med 2007;101:1659-64.
194. Lloyd A, Price D, Brown R. The impact of asthma exacerbations on health-related quality of life in moderate to severe asthma patients in the UK. Prim Care Respir J 2007;16:22-7.
195. Kyle S, Chandler D, Griffiths CE, Helliwell P, Lewis J, McInnes I, et al. Guideline for anti-TNF-alpha therapy in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2005;44:390-7. [Erratum published in Rheumatology 2005;44:569.]
196. Symmons DP, Barrett EM, Bankhead CR, Scott DG, Silman AJ. The incidence of rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom: results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register. Rheumatology 1994;33:735-9.
197. Mease PJ, Goffe BS, Metz J, VanderStoep A, Finck B, Burge DJ. Etanercept in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: a randomised trial. Lancet 2000;356:385-90.
198. Mease PJ, Kivitz AJ, Burch FX, Siegel EL, Cohen SB, Ory P, et al. Etanercept treatment of psoriatic arthritis: safety, efficacy, and effect on disease progression. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:2264-72.
199. Mease PJ, Kivitz AJ, Burch FX, Siegel EL, Cohen SB, Ory P, et al. Continued inhibition of radiographic progression in patients with psoriatic arthritis following 2 years of treatment with etanercept. J Rheumatol 2006;33:712-21.
200. Fleischmann R, Baumgartner SW, Weisman MH, Liu T, White B, Peloso P. Long term safety of etanercept in elderly subjects with rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:379-84.
201. Lebwohl M, Gottlieb A, Goffe BS, Jahreis A. Etanercept in psoriatic arthritis: sustained improvement in skin and joint disease and inhibition of radiographic progression at 2 years. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005;52(Suppl. 2):AB8.
202. Wanke LA, Mease PJ, Gottlieb AB. Sustained improvement in functional status and vitality of psoriatic arthritis patients treated with etanercept. J Invest Dermatol 2004;122:A64.
203. Mease PJ, Woolley JM, Singh A, Tsuji W, Dunn M, Chiou CF. Patient-reported outcomes in a randomized comparison of etanercept and placebo for treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65(Suppl. 2):535.
204. Centocor. A multicenter placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised study of anti-TNF chimeric monoclonal antibody (cA2, infliximab) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (IMPACT): protocol no. P02114 [industry submission]. Malvern, PA: Centocor; 2003.
205. Schering-Plough Ltd. Remicade in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in the United Kingdom: a submission to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence [industry submission]. Kenilworth, NJ: Schering-Plough Ltd; 2004.
206. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Kirkham B, Tutuncu Z, Burmester GR, Schneider U, et al. Sustained benefits of infliximab therapy for dermatologic and articular manifestations of psoriatic arthritis: results from the infliximab multinational psoriatic arthritis controlled trial (IMPACT). Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1227-36.
207. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, van der Heijde D, Beutler A, Keenan G, Zhou B, et al. Two-year efficacy and safety of infliximab treatment in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: findings of the Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Controlled Trial (IMPACT). J Rheumatol 2008;35:869-76.
208. Kavanaugh A, Antoni CE, Gladman D, Wassenberg S, Zhou B, Beutler A, et al. The Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Controlled Trial (IMPACT): results of radiographic analyses after 1 year. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1038-43.
209. Kavanaugh A, Kruegar GG, Birbara C, Halter D, de Vlam K, Zhou B, et al. Treatment with infliximab is associated with 'major clinical response' in psoriatic arthritis patients treated with infliximab: analysis of two double-blind placebo controlled trials. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52(Suppl. 12):4065.
210. Kavanaugh A, Kruegar GG, Birbara C, Halter D, Geusens P, de Vlam K, et al. Treatment with infliximab is associated with 'major clinical response' in psoriatic arthritis patients treated with infliximab: analysis of two double-blind placebo controlled trials. J Invest Dermatol 2007;127:1824.
211. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Kirkham B, Tutuncu ZN, Burmester G, Schneider U, et al. 2-year data: infliximab maintains clinical response in psoriatic arthritis patients-data from the Infliximab Multinational Psoriatic Arthritis Controlled Trial (IMPACT). Arthritis Rheum 2005;52(Suppl. S):S209.
212. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Gladman D, Wassenberg S, Zhou B, Beutler A, et al. The infliximab multinational psoriatic arthritis controlled trial (IMPACT): results of radiographic analyses after 1 year. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64(Suppl. 3):107.
213. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Kirkham B, Burmester G, Manger B, Tutuncu Z, et al. The infliximab multinational psoriatic arthritis controlled trial (IMPACT): substantial efficacy on synovitis and psoriatic lesions with or without concomitant DMARD therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62(Suppl. 1):90.
214. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Kirkham B, Burmester G, Manger B, Schneider U, et al. The infliximab multinational psoriatic arthritis controlled trial (IMPACT1): the concomitant use of DMARDs does not influence the efficacy and safety of infliximab over a one year period. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63(Suppl. 1):411-12.
215. Antoni C, Krueger G, de Vlam K, Birbara C, Beutler A, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1150-7.
216. van der Heijde D, Kavanaugh A, Gladman DD, Antoni C, Krueger GG, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab inhibits progression of radiographic damage in patients with active psoriatic arthritis through one year of treatment: results from the induction and maintenance psoriatic arthritis clinical trial 2. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:2698-707.
217. Kavanaugh A, Krueger GG, Beutler A, Guzzo C, Zhou B, Dooley LT, et al. Infliximab maintains a high degree of clinical response in patients with active psoriatic arthritis through 1 year of treatment: results from the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:498-505.
218. Kavanaugh A, Antoni C, Mease P, Gladman D, Yan S, Bala M, et al. Effect of infliximab therapy on employment, time lost from work, and productivity in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 2006;33:2254-9.
219. Kavanaugh A, Antoni C, Krueger GG, Yan S, Bala M, Dooley LT, et al. Infliximab improves health related quality of life and physical function in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:471-7.
220. Papp K, Menter A, Antoni C, Kavanaugh A, Gottlieb AB, Paulin Y, et al. Rapid and persistent improvement of psoriasis in patients with active psoriatic arthritis treated with infliximab: 24-week results of the impact 2 trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2004;18:783.
221. Kavanauagh A, Krueger GG, De Vlam K, Birbara C, Beutler A Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab significantly improves joint and skin involvement in psoriatic arthritis to a substantial extent and irrespective of baseline joint involvement or MTX use: analysis of clinical response from the IMPACT2 trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50(Suppl. S):S617.
222. Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Ritchlin CT, Ruderman EM, Steinfeld SD, Choy EH, et al. Adalimumab for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active psoriatic arthritis: results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3279-89.
223. Mease PJ, Ory P, Sharp JT, Ritchlin CT, Van den Bosch F, Wellborne F, et al. Adalimumab for long-term treatment of psoriatic arthritis: 2-year data from the Adalimumab Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis Trial (ADEPT). Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:702-9.
224. Gladman DD, Mease PJ, Ritchlin CT, Choy EH, Sharp JT, Ory PA, et al. Adalimumab for long-term treatment of psoriatic arthritis: forty-eight week data from the adalimumab effectiveness in psoriatic arthritis trial. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:476-88.
225. Gladman DD, Mease PJ, Cifaldi MA, Perdok RJ, Sasso E, Medich J. Adalimumab improves joint-related and skin-related functional impairment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: patient-reported outcomes of the Adalimumab Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis Trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:163-8.
226. Choy E, Gladman D, Sasso E. Efficacy of adalimumab by disease duration in psoriatic arthritis: subanalysis of ADEPT. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;56:AB186.
227. Gladman D, Mease P, Ritchlin C, Okun M. PASI-100 is associated with better dermatologyspecific patient-reported outcomes compared with PASI-75e99 in adalimumab-treated patients with psoriatic arthritis: subanalysis of ADEPT. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;56:AB185.
228. Gladman D, Mease P, Kavanaugh A, Weinberg M. Adalimumab is efficacious in treating skin disease in psoriatic arthritis: subanalysis of moderate versus severe psoriasis in the ADEPT trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;54:AB10-11.
229. Mease P, Gladman D, Ritchlin C, Weinberg M. Clinical efficacy, safety and inhibition of joint destruction of adalimumab in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis: 48-week results of the ADEPT trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;54:AB214.
230. Mease P, Sharp J, Ory P, Gladman D, Ritchlin C, Choy E, et al. Adalimumab treatment effects on radiographic progression of joint disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from ADEPT. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2005;19(Suppl. 2):163.
231. Genovese MC, Mease PJ, Thomson GT, Kivitz AJ, Perdok RJ, Weinberg MA, et al. Safety and efficacy of adalimumab in treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis who had failed disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1040-50.
232. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:753-67.
233. Rodgers M, Epstein D, Bojke L, Yang H, Craig D, Fonseca T, et al. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(10).
234. Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Lindgren P, Young A, Eberhardt K. Modelling the progression of rheumatoid arthritis: a two-country model to estimate costs to estimate costs and consequences of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:2310-19.
235. Department of Health. Reference costs 2007-2008. London: Department of Health; 2009. URL:www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyandGuidance/DH_09895.
236. Symmons DP, Silman AJ. The Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR). Clin Exp Rheumtol 2003;21:S94-9.
237. Yang H, Epstein D, Bojke L, Craig D, Light K, Bruce I, et al. Evidence review group's report: golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. London: NIHR HTA; 2010.
238. Brennan A, Kharroubi S, O'Hagan A, Chilcott J. Calculating partial expected value of perfect information via Monte Carlo sampling algorithms. Med Decis Making 2007;27:448-70