Intro QALY & need assessment
Download
Report
Transcript Intro QALY & need assessment
Value of Information
in relation to risk management
Prof.
Dr. Jan J.V. Busschbach
1
Change in policy
Now:
evaluate all new medication
Future: only when risk are high
When
is an economic evaluation useful?
When there is doubt about cost effectiveness
Low on information about cost effectivenesss
2
The 3 meanings of doubt
1. The cost effectiveness might be invalid
Methodologically unsound
The CFH judges the validity using guidelines
2. The cost effectiveness might be to high
To high = bad
The ACP values the height of cost effectiveness
The CFH has no judgment
3. The cost effectiveness might be uncertain
Much error variance
Unclear who is dealing with this….ACP? CFH?
Room for more risk management
3
Uncertainty is linked to CE-ratio
4
Interested in both costs and effect
High costs
Not cost effective
cost effective
Less effective
More
effective
Low costs
(savings)
5
Sensitivity analysis
High costs
Forget it!
Good
Better
Less effective
Difficult…
More effective
Superb!
Low costs
(savings)
6
Cost-effectiveness plane
€ 250,000
Not cost effective
€ 200,000
Cost
€ 150,000
€ 100,000
€ 50,000
Cost effective
€0
QALYs
7
Cost Effectiveness
Acceptability Curve (CEAC)
8
Risk management
We
can judge if we are in need of more
information
Value of Information analysis
9
Value of Information (VoI)
High reduction
High VoI of risk
Low reduction
Low VoI of risk
Low reduction
Low VoIof risk
10
Risk management
Make
prototype cost effectiveness analysis
Do a value of information analysis
Triage:
Unconditional reimbursement:
• If CE-ratio is far much below threshold
• Value of information is (most likely) low
Conditional reimbursement
• If CE-ratio is close to threshold
• Value of information is high
Unconditional reject of reimbursement
• Value of information is low
11
Arguments not to do so…
We
should reimburse all effective drugs
We should evaluate all (new) effective drug
Assumes that we have the resources to do so
We
do not have a threshold
We can not make acceptable prototypes
12
We have an indication of a
threshold…
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het
Regeringsbeleid, 2006
13
Example prototype model:
Lucentis evaluated in the ACP
14
Patel et al, 2010
15
Avastin versus Lucentis
16
Conclusion
Risk
management relates to value of
information
Conditional reimbursement can be done on
prototype cost effectiveness analysis
Only invest in (cost-) effectiveness, if
Risks are high
Value of Information is high
17
CFH procedure
Standard
procedure
Test of the validity of the cost effectiveness analysis
Using the guidelines
Orphan
and expensive hospital drugs
Conditional reimbursement
Approval of a four year data collection
• To arrive ad a valid cost effectiveness analysis
After 4 years
• Test of the validly of the cost effectiveness analysis
Using guidelines
Valuing
cost effectiveness = other committee
Advies Commissie Pakket (ACP)
18
Uncertainty relates to threshold
If:
But what if CE-ratio is an interval:
If:
If:
CE-ratio = € 15.000 per QALY
Threshold = € 25.000 per QALY
Then intervention is cost effective
Threshold = € 25.000 per QALY
CE-ratio = € 10.000 till € 30.000 per QALY
Then intervention might be cost effective
Threshold = € 11.000
Then intervention most likely not cost effective
Threshold = € 29.000
Then intervention is most likely cost effective
19
65 Citations in PubMed
1997 [pdat] AND "value of information analysis"
12
Publications
10
8
6
4
2
0
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
20
How much evidence?
Why is evidence valuable?
How things
could turn out
Net Health Benefit
Treatment A
Treatment B
Best choice
Best we could
do if we knew
Possibility 1
8
12
B
12
Possibility 2
16
8
A
16
Possibility 3
9
14
B
14
Possibility 4
12
10
A
12
Possibility 5
10
16
B
16
Average
11
12
What’s the best we can do now?
Choose B
Expect 12 QALYs, gain 1 QALY
14
Could we do better?
If we knew
Expect 14 QALYs
But uncertain
Wrong decision 2/5 times
Maximum value of more evidence is 2 QALYs per patient
21
Methods
Model Structure
Clinical
effect
QALY
Random
Disease
Progression
sampling
Treatment A
Asymptomatic
Progressive
Dead
Treatment B
Asymptomatic
Costs
Progressive
Dead
Treatment A
QALY
Cost
1
£10,000
0
£ 5,000
2
£15,000
1
£10,000
Treatment B
QALY
Cost
2
£30,000
3
£20,000
4
£40,000
3
£30,000
22
Would more
evidence
improve
health?
Is the evidence sufficient?
How things
could turn out
Net Health Benefit
Treatment A
Treatment B
Best choice
Best we could
do if we knew
Possibility 1
9
12
B
12
Possibility 2
12
10
A
12
Possibility 3
14
17
B
17
Possibility 4
11
10
A
11
Possibility 5
14
16
B
16
Average
12
13
13.6
What’s the best we can do now?
Choose B, expect additional net benefit of 1 QALY
Could we do better?
Get an extra 0.6 QALY
Right decision 3/5 times (p = 0.6)
Wrong decision 2/5 times (1-p = 0.4)
Maximum benefit of more evidence is
0.6 QALYs or £12,000 per patient
23
How uncertain is the decision?
1
Choose A
Choose B
0.9
B
0.8
Probability cost-effective
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
A
ICER = £25,000 per QALY
0.1
C
0
£0
£10,000
£20,000
£30,000
£40,000
£50,000
£60,000
Cost-effectiveness threshold
24
Do we need more evidence?
Cost of research
£25,000,000
Maxium benefit of evidence
.
£20,000,000
£15,000,000
£10,000,000
Cost of research
£5,000,000
Choose A
Choose B
£0
£0
£10,000
£20,000
£30,000
£40,000
£50,000
£60,000
Cost-effectiveness threshold
25
Alan Williams
26
27