The value of heterogeneity for cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis: Conceptual framework and application

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 951-964

  Espinoza, Manuel A ^a,b   Manca, Andrea ^c   Claxton, Karl ^c   Sculpher, Mark J ^c  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^b INSTITUTO DE SALUD PÚBLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Heterogeneity; Subgroup analysis; Value of information

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RESEARCH; UNCERTAINTY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RESEARCH; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84909590328     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14538705     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Stevens W, Normand C. Optimisation versus certainty: understanding the issue of heterogeneity in economic evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(2):315-20.
2. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):799.
3. Stallones R. The use and abuse of subgroup analysis in epidemiological research. Prev Med. 1987;16:183-94.
4. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116(1):78-84.
5. Cui L, Hung H, Wang S, Tsong Y. Issues related to subgroup analysis in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2002;12:347-58.
6. Cook DI, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Subgroup analysis in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2004;180(6):289-91.
7. Grouin J-M, Coste M, Lewis J. Subgroup analyses in randomized clinical trials: statistical and regulatory issues. J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15(5):869-82.
8. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, et al. Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials. Trials. 2009;10:101.
9. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ. 2010;340:c117.
10. Wang R, Lagakos S, Ware J, Hunter D, Drazen J. Statistics in medicine: reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2189-94.
11. Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: the P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(12):995-1004.
12. Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: the Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(12):1005-13.
13. McClosey D, Ziliak S. The standard error of regressions. J Econ Lit. 1996;XXXIV:97-114.
14. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341-64.
15. Coyle D, Buxton MJ, O'Brien BJ. Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. Health Econ. 2003;12(5):421-7.
16. Phelps CE. Good technologies gone bad: how and why the cost-effectiveness of a medical intervention changes for different populations. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):107-17.
17. Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):112-27.
18. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722-32.
19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London 2008. Available from: URL: www.nice.org.
20. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
21. Department of Health. White paper: equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London; 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/LiberatingtheNHS/index.htm.
22. US Public Law Sec 6301. Establishment: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. 2010. Available from: URL: www.pcori.org.
23. Hamburg M, Collins F. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):301-4.
24. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commision.A healthier future for all Australians: final report June 2009. Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
25. Briggs A, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, eds. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Gosport, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006.
26. Kravitz R, Duan N, Braslow J. Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 2004;82:661-87.
27. Sculpher M. Reflecting heterogeneity in patient benefits: the role of subgroup analysis with comparative effectiveness. Value Health. 2010;13(suppl 1):S18-21.
28. Rothwell P. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet. 2005;365:176-86.
29. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrence G, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, eds. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
30. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201-8.
31. Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJLM, et al. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000;284(7):835-42.
32. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):479-500.
33. Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12(5):739-49.
34. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ. 1996;5(6):513-24.
35. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):269-74.
36. Ginnelly L, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Golder S. Using value of information analysis to inform publicly funded research priorities. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(1):37-46.
37. Griffin SC, Claxton KP, Palmer SJ, Sculpher MJ. Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Health Econ. 2011;20(2):212-24.
38. 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.
39. Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making. 1988;8(4):279-89.
40. Basu A. Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care. J Health Econ. 2011;30(3):549-59.
41. Kim J, Henderson RA, Pocock SJ, et al. Health-related quality of life after interventional or conservative strategy in patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: one-year results of the third Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina (RITA-3). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(2):221-8.
42. Epstein DM, Sculpher MJ, Clayton TC, et al. Costs of an early intervention versus a conservative strategy in acute coronary syndrome. Int J Cardiol. 2008;127(2):240-6.
43. Van Gestel A, Grutters J, Schouten J, et al. The role of expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. Value Health. 2012;15:13-21.
44. Henriksson M, Epstein DM, Palmer SJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome based on the RITA 3 trial. Heart. 2008;94(6):717-23.
45. Office for National Statistics. January 2012. Available from: URL: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html.