Are value of information methods ready for prime time? An application to alternative treatment strategies for nstemi patients

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 435-442

  Kent, Seamus ^a   Briggs, Andrew ^b   Eckermann, Simon ^c   Berry, Colin ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical trial; Myocardial infarction; Sample size; Value of information

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CLINICAL TRIAL DESIGNS; COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATIOS; EXPECTED VALUE OF INFORMATION; FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVES; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; SAMPLE SIZES; VALUE OF INFORMATION;

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION THEORY; EXPERIMENTS; INFORMATION THEORY; PATIENT TREATMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; BISOPROLOL; CLOPIDOGREL; NITRATE; RAMIPRIL; SIMVASTATIN;

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CARDIAC PATIENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; NON ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; PATIENT INFORMATION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SAMPLE SIZE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DECISION MAKING; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED KINGDOM;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ENGLAND; FRACTIONAL FLOW RESERVE, MYOCARDIAL; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; WALES;

EID: 84889599515     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000433     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
2. O'Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL,Miller DW, Smith MD. Health technology assessment: Lessons learned from around the world-an overview. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 2):S1-S5.
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of health technology appraisal. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2008.
4. Health Technology Board for Scotland. Criteria and process for selection of topics to undergo health technology assessment. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland; 2001.
5. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: A decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J HealThecon. 1999;18:341-364.
6. Eckermann S, Karnon J, Willan AR. The value of value of information best informing research design and prioritization using current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:699-709.
7. Eckermann S,WillanAR. Time and expected value of sample information wait for no patient. Value Health. 2008;11:522-526.
8. Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. HealThecon. 2007;16:195-209.
9. Willan AR, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. HealThecon. 2010;19:549-561.
10. Willan AR, Pinto EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005;24:1791-1806.
11. Kern MJ, LermanA,Bech JW, et al. Physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in the cardiac catheterization laboratory-A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2006;114:1321-1341.
12. Fearon WF, Bornschein B, Tonino PAL, et al. Economic evaluation of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease. Circulation. 2010;122:2545-2550.
13. Pijls NHJ, Fearon WF, Tonino PAL, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease 2-year followup of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:177-184.
14. British Medical Association and Royal pharmaceutical Society. British National Formulary 62. London: British Medical Association; 2011.
15. Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2009-2010. Leeds: Department of Health; 2011.
16. Carrick D, Behan M, Foo F, et al. Influence of fractional flow reserve measurement on treatment-decisions in patients with recent acute non-st elevation myocardial infarction. Heart. 2011;97:A16-A17.
17. Scarborough P, Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, et al. Coronary heart disease statistics: 2010 edition. Oxford: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010.
18. Hoomans T, Fenwick EAL, 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;12:315-324.
19. Drummond M, Weatherly H. Implementing the findings of health technology assessments-If the CAT got out of the bag, can the TAIL wag the dog? Int J Technol Assess. 2000;16:1-12.
20. Gittins J, Pezeshk H. A behavioral bayes method for determining the size of a clinical trial. Drug Inf J. 2000;34:355-363.
21. Eckermann S,Willan AR. Globally optimal trial design for local decision making. HealThecon. 2009;18:203-216.
22. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:207-227.
23. Nixon RM,Wonderling D, Grieve RD. Non-parametric methods for costeffectiveness analysis: The central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. HealThecon. 2010;19:316-333.
24. Palmer S, Sculpher M, Philips Z, et al. Management of non-STelevation acute coronary syndromes: How cost-effective are glycoprotein IIb/IIIA antagonists in the UK National Health Service? Int J Cardiol. 2005;100:229-240.