Prioritizing Future Research on Allopurinol and Febuxostat for the Management of Gout: Value of Information Analysis
The aim of this study was to quantify the value of conducting additional research and reducing uncertainty regarding the cost effectiveness of allopurinol and febuxostat for the management of gout.
We used a previously developed Markov model that evaluated the cost effectiveness of nine urate-lowering strategies: no treatment, allopurinol-only fixed dose (300 mg), allopurinol-only dose escalation (up to 800 mg), febuxostat-only fixed dose (80 mg), febuxostat-only dose escalation (up to 120 mg), allopurinol–febuxostat sequential therapy fixed dose, allopurinol–febuxostat sequential therapy dose escalation, febuxostat–allopurinol sequential therapy fixed dose, and febuxostat–allopurinol sequential therapy dose escalation. Each strategy was evaluated over the lifetime of a hypothetical gout patient. We calculated population expected value of perfect information (EVPI). We used a linear regression meta-modeling approach to calculate population expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI), and a Gaussian approximation to calculate the population expected value of sample information for parameters (EVSI) and the expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS) for four potential study designs: (1) an allopurinol efficacy trial; (2) a febuxostat efficacy trial; (3) a prospective observational study evaluating health utilities; and (4) a comprehensive study evaluating the efficacy of allopurinol and febuxostat and health utilities. A 5-year decision time horizon was used in the base-case analysis.
EVPI varied by a decision maker’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and was $US900 million for WTP of $US60,000 per QALY. Population EVPPI was highest across all WTP values for study design #4. For study design #4 and a WTP of $US60,000 per QALY, the optimal sample size was 735 patients per study arm.
Future studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of allopurinol and febuxostat dose escalation.
- 5.Zhang W, Doherty M, Bardin T, Pascual E, Barskova V, Conaghan P, et al. EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part II: management. Report of a task force of the EULAR standing committee for international clinical studies including therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(10):1312–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Zhang W, Doherty M, Bardin T, Pascual E, Barskova V, Conaghan P, et al. EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part I: diagnosis. Report of a task force of the EULAR standing committee for international clinical studies including therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:1301–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Schumacher HR Jr, Becker MA, Wortmann RL, MacDonald PA, Hunt B, Streit J, et al. Effects of febuxostat versus allopurinol and placebo in reducing serum urate in subjects with hyperuricemia and gout: a 28-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:1540–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. USA: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 15.Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, McKenna C, et al. 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 Technol Assess. 2012;16(46):1–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Jalal H, Alarid-Escudero F. A Gaussian approximation approach for value of information analysis. Med Decis Mak. (In Press).Google Scholar
- 24.US Food and Drug Administration. Orange Book: approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence. 2017. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/patent_info.cfm?Product_No=001&Appl_No=021856&Appl_type=N. Accessed May 30, 2017.
- 31.Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGaw-Hill; 1959.Google Scholar
- 34.Romberger D. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine Newsletter. May 2015.Google Scholar
- 35.Bennette CS, Veenstra DL, Basu A, Baker LH, Ramsey SD, Carlson JJ. Development and evaluation of an approach to using value of information analyses for real-time prioritization decisions within SWOG, a large cancer clinical trials cooperative group. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(5):641–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S, Bojke L, Sculpher M. Priority setting for research in health care: an application of value of information analysis to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(3):379–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Tuffaha HW, Gordon LG, Scuffham PA. Value of information analysis informing adoption and research decisions in a portfolio of health care interventions. MDM Policy Pract. 2016;1(1). doi:10.1177/2381468316642238.
- 44.Khanna PP, Nuki G, Bardin T, Tausche A-K, Forsythe A, Goren A, et al. Tophi and frequent gout flares are associated with impairments to quality of life, productivity, and increased healthcare resource use: results from a cross-sectional survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 47.Sheils J. Harmonizing the Obama, Baucus and Wyden/Bennett health reform proposals: technical feasibility. Falls Church, VA: The Lewin Group; 2009. Accessed at www.lewin.com/~/media/Lewin/Site_Sections/Publications/LewinAnalysisWydenBaucusFeasibility.pdf on 5 September 2014.
- 48.2010 Red Book: Pharmacy’s Fundamental Reference, 114th Ed. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Reuters (Healthcare), 2010.Google Scholar