Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:18:15.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EARLY BIRD CATCHES THE WORM: EARLY COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF NEW MEDICAL TESTS

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2016

Leander R. Buisman ,
Maureen P.M.H. Rutten-van Mölken ,
Douwe Postmus ,
Jolanda J. Luime ,
Carin A. Uyl-de Groot  and
William K. Redekop
Leander R. Buisman
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University [email protected]
Maureen P.M.H. Rutten-van Mölken
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Douwe Postmus
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen
Jolanda J. Luime
Affiliation:
Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam
Carin A. Uyl-de Groot
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam
William K. Redekop
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: There is little specific guidance on performing an early cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical tests. We developed a framework with general steps and applied it to two cases.

Methods: Step 1 is to narrow down the scope of analysis by defining the test's application, target population, outcome measures, and investigating current test strategies and test strategies if the new test were available. Step 2 is to collect evidence on the current test strategy. Step 3 is to develop a conceptual model of the current and new test strategies. Step 4 is to conduct the early-CEA by evaluating the potential (cost-)effectiveness of the new test in clinical practice. Step 5 involves a decision about the further development of the test.

Results: The first case illustrated the impact of varying the test performance on the headroom (maximum possible price) of an add-on test for patients with an intermediate-risk of having rheumatoid arthritis. Analyses showed that the headroom is particularly dependent on test performance. The second case estimated the minimum performance of a confirmatory imaging test to predict individual stroke risk. Different combinations of sensitivity and specificity were found to be cost-effective; if these combinations are attainable, the medical test developer can feel more confident about the value of further development of the test.

Conclusions: A well-designed early-CEA methodology can improve the ability to develop (cost-)effective medical tests in an efficient manner. Early-CEAs should continuously integrate insights and evidence that arise through feedback, which may convince developers to return to earlier steps.

Keywords

Early cost-effectiveness analysisMedical testDecision supportResearch and developmentManufacturerTest developer
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 1-2 , 2016 , pp. 46 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Dirckx, JH. Stedman's concise: Medical dictionary for the health professions. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.Google Scholar
2. Drummond MF. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;1:8–13.Google Scholar
3. Johannesson, M. Economic evaluation of drugs and its potential uses in policy-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;8:190–198.Google Scholar
4. Annemans, L, B, Genesté, Jolain, B. Early modelling for assessing health and economic outcomes of drug therapy. Value Health. 2000;3:427–434.Google Scholar
5. Pietzsch, JB, Paté-Cornell, ME. Early technology assessment of new medical devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:36–44.Google Scholar
6. IJzerman, MJ, Steuten, LM. Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: A review of methods and applications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9:331–347.Google Scholar
7. Hartz, S, John, J. Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: A methodological and empirical review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:465–472.Google Scholar
8. O'Prinsen, AC, Gaultney, J, Redekop, WK. Universal steps for conducting early-stage medical technology assessment. ISPOR Connect. 2009;November/December:4-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Diagnostic assessment programme manual. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.Google Scholar
10. Redekop, K, Uyl-de Groot, C. Diagnostiek en economische evaluatie. In: Rutten-van Molken, M, Uyl-de Groot, C, Rutten, F, eds. Van kosten tot effecten: Een handleiding voor economische evaluatiestudies in de gezondheidszorg. Amsterdam: Elsevier Gezondheidszorg; 2010. p 157–176.Google Scholar
11. O'Connor, D, Green, S, Higgins, JPT. Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed May 2, 2014).Google Scholar
12. Eddy, DM, Hollingworth, W, Caro, JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:733–743.Google Scholar
13. Claxton, K. The irrelevance of inference: A decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18:341–364.Google Scholar
14. Sculpher, M, Claxton, K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty: When is there sufficient evidence? Value Health. 2005;8:433–446.Google Scholar
15. Claxton, KP, Sculpher, MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: Some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1055–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Girling, A, Young, T, Brown, C, Lilford, R. Early-stage valuation of medical devices: The role of developmental uncertainty. Value Health. 2010;13:585–591.Google Scholar
17. Postmus, D, De Graaf, G, Hillege, HL, Steyerberg, EW, Buskens, E. A method for the early health technology assessment of novel biomarker measurement in primary prevention programs. Stat Med. 2012;31:2733–2744.Google Scholar
18. Cosh, E, Girling, A, Lilford, R, McAteer, H, Young, T. Investing in new medical technologies: A decision framework. J Commerc Biotechnol. 2007;13:263–271.Google Scholar
19. Pincus, T, Callahan, LF, Sale, WG, et al. Severe functional declines, work disability, and increased mortality in seventy-five rheumatoid arthritis patients studied over nine years. Arthritis Rheum. 1984;27:864–872.Google Scholar
20. Mitchell, DM, Spitz, PW, Young, DY, et al. Survival, prognosis, and causes of death in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1986;29:706–714.Google Scholar
21. Scott, DL, Symmons, DP, Coulton, BL, Popert, AJ. Long-term outcome of treating rheumatoid arthritis: Results after 20 years. Lancet. 1987;1:1108–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Isomäki, H. Long-term outcome of rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1992;95:3–8.Google Scholar
23. Wolfe, F. The natural history of rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1996;44:13–22.Google Scholar
24. Aletaha, D, Neogi, T, Silman, AJ, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:1580–1588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Bijlsma, JW, Weinblatt, ME. Optimal use of methotrexate: The advantages of tight control. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:1409–1410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Jacobs, JW. Optimal use of non-biologic therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51:iv3–8.Google Scholar
27. Chen, YF, Jobanputra, P, Barton, P, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii–iv, xi–xiii, 1–229.Google Scholar
28. Donahue, KE, Garthehner, G, Jonas, DE, et al. Comparative effectiveness of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis in adults. Rockville, MD: AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews; 2007.Google Scholar
29. Singh, JA, Christensen, R, Wells, GA, et al. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: A Cochrane overview. CMAJ. 2009;181:787–796.Google Scholar
30. Alves, C, Luime, JJ, Van Zeben, D, et al. Diagnostic performance of the ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and two diagnostic algorithms in an early arthritis clinic (REACH). Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1645–1647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Claessen, SJ, Hazes, JM, Huisman, MA, et al. Use of risk stratification to target therapies in patients with recent onset arthritis; Design of a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:71.Google Scholar
32. Van Baarsen, LG, Bos, WH, Rustenburg, F, et al. Gene expression profiling in autoantibody-positive patients with arthralgia predicts development of arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:694–704.Google Scholar
33. De Jong, PH, Hazes, JM, Han, HK, et al. Randomised comparison of initial triple DMARD therapy with methotrexate monotherapy in combination with low-dose glucocorticoid bridging therapy; 1-year data of the tREACH trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1331–1339.Google Scholar
34. Vermeer, M, Kievit, W, Kuper, HH, et al. Treating to the target of remission in early rheumatoid arthritis is cost-effective: Results of the DREAM registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:350.Google Scholar
35. Tan, SS, Bouwmans, CA, Rutten, FF, Hakkaart-van Roijen, L. Update of the Dutch Manual for Costing in Economic Evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:152–158.Google Scholar
36. Dutch Healthcare Authority. Tariffs application [Internet]. Utrecht: Dutch Healthcare Authority. http://dbc-zorgproducten-tarieven.nza.nl/nzaZpTarief/ZoekfunctieDot.aspx (accessed February 4, 2015).Google Scholar
37. National Health Care Institute [Internet]. Diemen: National Health Care Institute. http://www.medicijnkosten.nl/default.asp (accessed February 4, 2015)Google Scholar
38. Statistics Netherlands [Internet]. The Hague: Statistics Netherlands. http://statline.cbs.nl (accessed February 4, 2015)Google Scholar
39. Buisman, LR, Rijnsburger, AJ, Den Hertog, HM, Van der Lugt, A, Redekop, WK. Clinical practice variation needs to be considered in cost-effectiveness analyses: A case study of patients with a recent transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:67–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO. Guideline: Diagnostics, treatment and healthcare for patients with a stroke (In Dutch: Richtlijn: Diagnostiek, behandeling en zorg voor patiënten met een beroerte). Utrecht: Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO; 2008.Google Scholar
41. Tholen, ATR, De Monyé, C, Genders, TSS, et al. Suspected carotid artery stenosis: Cost-effectiveness of CT angiography in work-up of patients with recent TIA or minor ischemic stroke. Radiology. 2010;256:585–597.Google Scholar
42. Drummond, M, Griffin, A, Tarricone, R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs–Same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402–404.Google Scholar
43. Cao, Q, Postmus, D, Hillege, HL, Buskens, E. Probability elicitation to inform early health economic evaluations of new medical technologies: A case study in heart failure disease management. Value Health. 2013;16:529–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Buisman supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Buisman supplementary material(File)
File 1.9 MB