How to Appropriately Extrapolate Costs and Utilities in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
- 922 Downloads
Costs and utilities are key inputs into any cost-effectiveness analysis. Their estimates are typically derived from individual patient-level data collected as part of clinical studies the follow-up duration of which is often too short to allow a robust quantification of the likely costs and benefits a technology will yield over the patient’s entire lifetime. In the absence of long-term data, some form of temporal extrapolation—to project short-term evidence over a longer time horizon—is required. Temporal extrapolation inevitably involves assumptions regarding the behaviour of the quantities of interest beyond the time horizon supported by the clinical evidence. Unfortunately, the implications for decisions made on the basis of evidence derived following this practice and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the validity of any assumptions made are often not fully appreciated. The issue is compounded by the absence of methodological guidance concerning the extrapolation of non-time-to-event outcomes such as costs and utilities. This paper considers current approaches to predict long-term costs and utilities, highlights some of the challenges with the existing methods, and provides recommendations for future applications. It finds that, typically, economic evaluation models employ a simplistic approach to temporal extrapolation of costs and utilities. For instance, their parameters (e.g. mean) are typically assumed to be homogeneous with respect to both time and patients’ characteristics. Furthermore, costs and utilities have often been modelled to follow the dynamics of the associated time-to-event outcomes. However, cost and utility estimates may be more nuanced, and it is important to ensure extrapolation is carried out appropriately for these parameters.
KeywordsIndividual Patient Data Health Assessment Questionnaire Score Psoriasis Area Severity Index Decision Uncertainty Baseline Utility
Laura Bojke and Andrea Manca were primarily responsible for drafting the manuscript. Stephen Palmer, Miqdad Asaria, Ronan Mahon and Shijie Ren contributed towards writing and commented on various versions of the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Work contributing to this manuscript was conducted as part of a Medical Research Council (MRC) grant “Methods of extrapolating RCT evidence for economic evaluation”, although this manuscript was not prepared during the time of this grant. Laura Bojke was supported in the preparation/submission of this paper by the Health Economics and Outcome Measurement (HEOM) Theme of the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH; www.clahrc-yh.nir.ac.uk). The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Conflicts of interest
Laura Bojke, Andrea Manca, Miqdad Asaria, Ronan Mahan, Stephen Palmer and Shijie Ren all have no conflicts of interest.
- 3.Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D: discussion paper 172. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1999.Google Scholar
- 4.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.Google Scholar
- 6.Conrad C. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). The German IQWiG—it’s not NICE benefit assessment in Germany-new sense or nuisance? ISPOR Connections, 2006;12(5). http://www.ispor.org/news/articles/oct06/german_policy.asp. Accessed 23 April 2017.
- 8.Collett D. Modelling survival data in medical research. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2003.Google Scholar
- 9.Latimer N. NICE DSU technical support document 14: survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials—extrapolation with patient-level data report by the Decision Support Unit. June 2011 (last updated March 2013). http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/NICE%20DSU%20TSD%20Survival%20analysis.updated%20March%202013.v2.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2017.
- 11.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- 12.Garside R, Green C, Hoyle M, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of natalizumab for multiple sclerosis: an evidence review of the submission from Biogen. 2007. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta127/resources/multiple-sclerosis-natalizumabevaluation-report-evidence-review-group-report2. Accessed 2 May 2017.
- 13.Garside R, Pitt M, Somerville M, et al. Surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess 2006;10(8):1–142, iii–iv.Google Scholar
- 17.Glazener C, Breeman S, Elders A, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study—results from the PROSPECT study. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(95):1–452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Davis S, Stevenson M, Tappenden P, et al. NICE DSU Technical support document 15: cost-effectiveness modelling using pateint-level simulation. Report by the Decision Support Unit. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2014.Google Scholar
- 24.Bravo Vergel Y, Palmer S, Erhorn S, et al. Adalimumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis. Southampton: Health Technol Assess; 2007.Google Scholar
- 28.Maund E, McKenna C, Sarowar M, et al. Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Health Technol Assess 2010;14(Suppl 2):55–62.Google Scholar
- 29.Rodgers M, Epstein D, Bojke L, et al. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(10):i–xxi, 1–329.Google Scholar
- 35.Woolacott N, Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins N, et al. Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2006;10(31):iii–iv, xiii–xvi, 1–239.Google Scholar
- 36.Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith K, et al. A preliminary model-based assessment of the cost-utility of a screening programme for early age-related macular degeneration. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(27):iii–iv, ix–124.Google Scholar
- 37.Corbett M, Bojke L, Chehadah F, et al. Certolizumab pegol and secukinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis following inadequate response to disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016033357. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016033357. Accessed 26 Apr 2017.
- 40.McKenna C, McDaid C, Suekarran S, 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): iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–90.Google Scholar
- 43.Harrison DA, Prabhu G, Grieve R, et al. Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN)—prospective validation of risk prediction models for adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury to use to evaluate the optimum location and comparative costs of neurocritical care: a cohort study. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(23):vii–viii, 1–350.Google Scholar
- 44.Stevenson M, Lloyd-Jones M, Papaioannou D. Vitamin K to prevent fractures in older women: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(45):iii–xi, 1–134.Google Scholar
- 47.Batty A, Winn B, Pericleous L, et al. A comparison of general population and patient utility values for advanced melanoma. European Society for Medical Oncology. Value Health. 2012;15:A277–A575.Google Scholar
- 48.Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. York Centre for Health Economics discussion paper. York: University of York; 1999. p. 172.Google Scholar
- 49.Peek GJ, Clemens F, Elbourne D, et al. CESAR: conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:163.Google Scholar
- 51.Ara R, Wailoo A. NICE DSU technical support document 12: the use of health state utility values in decision models. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2011.Google Scholar
- 52.van Duin MJ, Conde R, Wijnen B, et al. The impact of comorbidities on costs, utilities and health-related quality of life among HIV patients in a clinical setting in Bogotá. Epub: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcome Res; 2016.Google Scholar
- 58.Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, et al. Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies. CHE discussion paper 69. York: Centre for Health Economics; 2011.Google Scholar