Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determining the Baseline Strategy in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis with Treatment Sequences

  • Practical Application
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In response to a growing number of treatment options in many disease areas, health technology assessments need to evaluate sequences of treatments instead of individual interventions. This study investigated the impact of the baseline strategy on the cost-effectiveness results, when a sequence of treatments was used. First, we reviewed submissions to the UK National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence to understand how economic models that used comparisons of treatment sequences defined the baseline strategy. We then built a simple Markov model to use as a case study. The analysis we conducted contained four hypothetical treatments of varying cost-effectiveness relationships to a fixed control (best supportive care): Treatment A was cost effective, Treatment B was extendedly dominated by Treatment A, Treatment C was cost effective, but had a greater cost than both Treatment A and Treatment B, and Treatment D was not cost effective. Our review of the National Institute for Health and Care and Excellence submissions showed that, in most cases, authors relied on clinical guidelines, expert opinion or previously developed models to define the baseline strategy (n = 31). In several cases, the choice of a baseline strategy was not explained (n = 9). Several studies used the model to identify the optimal position for the new intervention (n = 5). Using the model, all possible permutations between the hypothetical treatments were generated and ranked by their net monetary benefit. We showed that (1) a non-cost-effective treatment would never be part of an optimal sequence and (2) the choice of baseline treatment sequence can change the cost-effectiveness estimate of a new intervention. If the aim of the decision maker is the efficient distribution of healthcare resources based on cost effectiveness, then the baseline strategy should be created based on the ranking of the net-monetary benefit. Ignoring the cost effectiveness of individual treatments when defining the baseline strategy, may lead to spurious results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Health technologies and decision making. 2005. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/health-technologies-and-decision-making_9789264016224-en#page2. Accessed July 2018.

  2. Dieleman JL, Squires E, Bui AL, Campbell M, Chapin A, Hamavid H, et al. Factors associated with increases in US health care spending, 1996–2013. JAMA. 2017;318(17):1668–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organisation (WHO). Access to new medicines in Europe: technical review of policy initiatives and opportunities for collaboration and research. 2015. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s21793en/s21793en.pdf. Accessed July 2018.

  4. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/the-reference-case. Acessed June 2018.

  5. Zheng Y, Feng P, Sorensen S. Modeling treatment sequences in pharmacoeconomic models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;35(1):15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tosh J, Stevenson M, Akehurst R. Health economic modelling of treatment sequences for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2014;16(10):447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Woolacott N, Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins N, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Misso K, 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.

  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?type=ta. Acessed June 2018.

  9. Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R. Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health. 2012;15(3):550–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Process and methods. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/the-reference-case. Accessed July 2018.

  11. Attema AE, Werner BBF, Claxton K. Discounting in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:745–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Office for National Statistics. Mortality statistics: Deaths registered in England and Wales (Series DR): 2016. 2017. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredinenglandandwalesseriesdr/2016. Accessed Aug 2018.

  13. Gniadecki R, Bang B, Bryld LE, Iversen L, Lasthein S, Skov L. Comparison of long-term drug survival and safety of biologic agents in patients with psoriasis vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172(1):244–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nash P, Kirkham B, Okada M, Rahman P, Combe B, Burmester G-R, et al. Ixekizumab for the treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the 24-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled period of the SPIRIT-P2 phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10086):2317–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sullivan SD, Alfonso-Cristancho R, Carlson J, Mallya U, Ringold S. Economic consequences of sequencing biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. J Med Econ. 2013;16(3):391–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jansenn Pharmaceuticals. TA387 manufacturer submission. Abiraterone acetate (Zytiga®) for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in men not previously treated with chemotherapy. Single technology appraisal (STA) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta387/documents/prostate-cancer-metastatic-hormone-relapsed-not-treated-with-chemotherapy-abiraterone-acetate-with-prednisolone-id503-evaluation-report2. Accessed July 2018.

  17. Merck Serono. TA176 manufacturer submission. Erbitux®(cetuximab) for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Single Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta176/documents/colorectal-cancer-first-line-cetuximab-merckserono2. Accessed July 2018.

  18. Teva. TA526 manufacturer sumbission. Arsenic trioxide for treating acute promyelocytic leukaemia. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta526/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  19. Pfizer. TA406 manufacturer submission. Crizotinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Single technology appraisal. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta406/documents/committee-papers-2. Accessed July 2018.

  20. Galaxo Smith Kline. TA344 manufacturer submission. Ofatumumab (Arzerra®) in combination with chlorambucil or bendamustine for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta344/documents/leukaemia-chronic-lymphocytic-ofatumumab-previously-untreated-evaluation-report-and-supporting-information2. Accessed July 2018.

  21. Hislop J, Quayyum Z, Elders A, Fraser C, Jenkinson D, Mowatt G, et al. TA209 assessment report. Imatinib for the treatment of unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (part review of TA86): systematic review of the clinical and costeffectiveness of imatinib at escalated doses of 600 mg/day or 800 mg/day for the treatment of unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours which have progressed on treatment at a dose of 400 mg/day. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta209/documents/gastrointestinal-stromal-tumours-unresectablemetastatic-imatinib-review-assessment-report2. Accessed July 2018.

  22. Hoyle M, Pavey T, Ciani O, Crathorne L, Jones-Hughes T, Cooper C, et al. TA251 assessment report. Dasatinib, nilotinib and standard dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: systematic reviews and economic analyses. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta251/documents/leukaemia-chronic-myeloid-first-line-dasatinib-nilotinib-and-standarddose-imatinib-assessment-report5. Accessed July 2018.

  23. Jansenn Pharmaceuticals. TA491 manufacturer submission. Ibrutinib for treating Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia. Single Technology Appraisal National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta491/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  24. Hoyle M, Pavey T, Ciani O, Crathorne L, Jones-Hughes T, Cooper C, et al. TA251 assessment report. Dasatinib, nilotinib, and standard dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: systematic reviews and economic analyses. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2011.

  25. Jansenn Pharmaceuticals. TA311 manufacturer submission. Bortezomib for induction therapy in multiple myeloma before high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). Document 02. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta311/documents/multiple-myeloma-bortezomib-induction-therapy-evaluation-report4. Accessed July 2018.

  26. Huxley N, Crathorne L, Varley-Campbell J, Tikhonova I, Snowsill T, Briscoe S, et al. TA439 assessment report. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of TA176) and panitumumab (partial review of TA240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta439/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  27. Ferring Phamaceuticals. TA404 manufacturer submission of evidence. Degarelix (Firmagon®) for the treatment of adult male patients with advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer. Single technology appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta404/documents/prostate-cancer-advanced-hormone-dependent-degarelix-depot-evaluation-report4. Accessed July 2018.

  28. Novartis. TA496 manufacturer submission. Ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for previously untreated advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2- negative breast cancer[ID1026]. Single Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?type=ta, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta496/documents/committee-papers.

  29. Napp Pharmaceuticals. TA216 manufacturer submission: bendamustine for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (Binet stage B or C) in patients for whom fludarabine combination chemotherapy is not appropriate. Single Technology Appraisal (STA) submission. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta216/documents/leukaemia-lymphocytic-bendamustine-manufacturer-submission2. Accessed July 2018.

  30. Schering Health Care Ltd. TA119 manufacturer submission. Fludarabine phosphate for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Single technology appraisal (STA) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2006. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta119/documents/schering-health-care-ltd-submission2. Accessed July 2018.

  31. Novartis. TA196 manufacturer submission.The clinical and cost effectiveness of imatinib (Glivec®) as adjuvant treatment for adult patients who are at significant risk of relapse following resection of KIT positive gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Single Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta196/documents/manufacturer-submission2. Accessed July 2018.

  32. Roche. TA226 manufacturer submission. Rituximab for the firstline maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta226/documents/follicular-nonhodgkins-lymphoma-rituximab-roche2. Accessed July 2018.

  33. Papaioannou D, Rafia R, Rathbone J, Stevenson M, Buckley Woods H. TA243 assessment report. Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III-IV follicular lymphoma (review of TA 110): systematic review and economic evaluation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta243/documents/follicular-lymphoma-rituximab-review-assessment-report3. Accessed July 2018.

  34. Astellas Pharma. TA377 manufactuer submission. Enzalutamide (XTANDITM) for the treatment of adult men with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic hormone relapsed prostate cancer after failure of androgen deprivation therapy in whom chemotherapy is not yet clinically indicated. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta377/documents/prostate-cancer-metastatic-hormonerelapsed-enzalutamide-id683-committee-papers-2. Accessed July 2018.

  35. Novartis. TA380 manufacturer submission. Panobinostat for treating multiple myeloma in people who have received at least one prior therapy (ID663). Single technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/published?type=ta, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta380/documents/multiple-myeloma-panobinostat-post-1-prior-therapy-id663-committee-papers2.

  36. Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd. TA319 manufacturer submission. Ipilimumab for previously untreated unresectable malignant melanoma. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta319/documents/evaluation-report2. Accessed July 2018.

  37. Eli Lilly and Company Ltd. TA465 manufacturer submission. Olaratumab in combination with doxorubicin for treating advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta442/documents/committee-papers-3. Accessed July 2018.

  38. Stevenson MD, Archer R, Tosh J, Simpson E, Everson-Hock E, Stevens JW, et al. TA375 assessment report. Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying anti-rhuematic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta375/documents/rheumatoid-arthritis-adalimumab-etanercept-infliximab-certolizumab-pegol-golimumab-abatacept-and-tocilizumab-review-assessment-report2. Accessed July 2018.

  39. Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W, et al. TA130 assessment report. The effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2005. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta130/documents/rheumatoid-arthritis-adalimumab-etanercept-and-infliximab-assessment-report2. Accessed July 2018.

  40. Pfizer. TA480 manufacturer submission. Rheumatoid arthritis - tofacitinib citrate [ID526]. Single technology appraisal (STA) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta480/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  41. Leo Pharma. TA511 manufacturer submission. Brodalumab for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults [ID878]. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta511/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  42. Shering- Plough Ltd. S-P. TA225 manufacturer submission. Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after failure of previous disease- modifying antirheumatic drugs. Single Technology Appraisal submission. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta225/documents/rheumatoid-arthritis-after-failure-of-previous-antirheumatic-drugs-golimumab-manufacturer-submission2. Accessed July 2018.

  43. Corbett M, Chehadah F, Biswas M, Moe-Byrne T, Palmer S, Soares M, et al. TA445 assessment report. Certolizumab pegol and secukinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis following inadequate response to disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. CRD/CHE Technology Assessment Group. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta445/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  44. UCB Pharma. TA415 manufacturer submission. Certolizumab Pegol for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Inadequately Responding to a Prior TNFi [ID824]. Single technology appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta415/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  45. Almirall. TA475 manfacturer submission. Dimethyl fumarate for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis [ID776] Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta475/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  46. Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd. TA247 manufacturer submission. Abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a Single Technology Appraisal. Manufacturer submission of evidence. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta247/documents/rheumatoid-arthritis-abatacept-2nd-line-bms2. Accessed July 2018.

  47. Eli Lilly and Company Ltd. TA442 manufacturer submission. Ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis [ID:904]. Single technology appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta442/documents/committee-papers-3. Accessed July 2018.

  48. Malottki K, Barton P, Tsourapas A, Uthman A, Liu Z, Routh K, et al. TA195 assessment report. Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a TNF inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2009. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta195/documents/drugs-for-the-treatment-of-rheumatoid-arthritis-after-the-failure-of-tnf-inhibitor-assessment-report2. Accessed July 2018.

  49. Sanofi. TA485 manufacturer submission. Sarilumab for treating moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis [ID994]. Single technology appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta485/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  50. Roche. TA238 manufacturer submission. RoActemra® (tocilizumab) for the treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA). Single Technology Appraisal (STA). Specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta238/documents/arthritis-juvenile-idiopathic-systemic-tocilizumab-appraisal-consultation-manufacturer-submission-from-roche2. Accessed July 2018.

  51. Castelnuovo E, Stein K, Pitt M, Garside R, Payne L. TA88 assessment report. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual chamber pacemakers compared to single-chamber pacemakers for bradykardia due to atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome: systematic review and economic evaluation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2004. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta88/documents/assessment-report-for-appraisal-of-dual-chamber-pacing4. Accessed July 2018.

  52. Sanofi. TA197 manufacturer submission: Single Technology Appraisal (STA) of Multaq® (dronedarone). Manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2009. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta197/documents/manufacturer-submission2. Accessed July 2018.

  53. Lundbeck Ltd . TA367 manufacturer submission. Vortioxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder [ID583]. Single Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta367/documents/major-depressive-disorder-vortioxetine-id583-committee-papers2. Accessed July 2018.

  54. Otsuka. TA213 manufacturer submission. Aripiprazole (Abilify®) for the treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents (15–17 years). Single Technology Appraisal (STA). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta213/documents/schizophrenia-aripiprazole-manufacturer-submission2. Accessed July 2018.

  55. Otsuka. TA292 manufacturer submission. Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic episodes in bipolar disorder in children and adolescents (ID305). Single Technology Appraisal. Document 02. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta292/documents/bipolar-disorder-children-aripirazole-evaluation-report2. Accessed July 2018.

  56. Greenhalgh J, Knight C, Hind D, Beverley C, Walters S. TA59 assessment report. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depressive illness, schizophrenia,catatonia and mania. Final assessment report. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2002. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta59/resources/final-assessment-report-electroconvulsive-therapy-ect-for-depressive-illness-schizophrenia-catatonia-and-mania2. Accessed July 2018.

  57. King S, Griffin S, Hodges Z, Weatherly H, Asseburg C, Richardson G, et al. TA98 assessment report. Methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2004. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta98/documents/assessment-report-attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-methylphenidate-atomoxetine-and-dexamfetamine-review4. Accessed July 2018.

  58. Gilead Sciences Inc. TA173 manufacturer submission. Tenofovir (Viread ) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Single Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta173/documents/manufacturer-submission3. Accessed July 2018.

  59. Johnston R, Uthman O, Cummins E, Clar C, Royle P, Colquitt J, et al. TA390 assessment report. Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta390/documents/assessment-report. Accessed July 2018.

  60. Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca. TA288 manufacturer submission. Dapagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Single Technology Appraisal (STA) submission. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2012. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta288/documents/diabetes-type-2-dapagliflozin-bristol-myerssquibb-and-astrazeneca2. Accessed July 2018.

  61. AstraZeneca. TA418 manufacturer submission. AstraZeneca Submission for Dapagliflozin in Triple Therapy Regimens for Treating Type 2 Diabetes [ID 962]. Single Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta418/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  62. Co.Don. TA508 manufacturer submission. Autologous chondrocyte implantation with Spherox for treating articular cartilage defects [ID851] Document A. Single technology appraisal National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta508/documents/committee-papers. Accessed July 2018.

  63. Archer R, Tappenden P, Ren S, Martyn-St James M, Harvey R, Basirir H, et al. TA329 assessment report. Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis after the failure of conventional therapy (including a review of TA140 and TA262): Clinical effectiveness systematic review and economic model. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta329/documents/ulcerative-colitis-moderate-severe-infliximab-review-ta140-adalimumab-review-ta262-golimumab-2nd-line-id695-evaluation-report-part12. Accessed July 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Laura Sawyer and two anonymous reviewers for helpful advice during preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Symmetron Limited, 8 Devonshire Square, London, EC2M 4PL, UK

    Marta Giulia Viola & Alexander Diamantopoulos

Authors
  1. Marta Giulia Viola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Diamantopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Alex Diamantopoulos initiated the project idea. Marta Giulia Viola conducted the literature review, extracted the data necessary and carried out all analyses. Alex Diamantopoulos conducted quality assurance checks on the data extraction and validated the analysis results. Both authors contributed to the development of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Giulia Viola.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No sources of funding were received for the preparation of this article.

Conflict of Interest

Alex Diamantopoulos and Marta Giulia Viola have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 173 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Viola, M.G., Diamantopoulos, A. Determining the Baseline Strategy in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis with Treatment Sequences. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 18, 17–29 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00514-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00514-2

Search

Navigation