Limitations of traditional health technology assessment methods and implications for the evaluation of novel therapies

References

• Garrison LP, Kamal-Bahl S, Towse A. Toward a broader concept of value: identifying and defining elements for an expanded cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health 2017;20:213-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016;316:1093-103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Cohen JT. Measuring the value of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2595-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra A, Shafrin J, Dhawan R. Utility of cancer value frameworks for patients, payers, and physicians. JAMA 2016;315:2069-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotseva K, Wood D, De Bacquer D, et al. EUROASPIRE IV: A European Society of Cardiology survey on the lifestyle, risk factor and therapeutic management of coronary patients from 24 European countries. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016;23:636-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aggarwal J, Patel J, Yu J, et al. LDL-C goal achievement after adding or switching to ezetimibe in patients with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or probable HeFH. J Manag Care Pharm 2016;222:S86
   Google Scholar
• Hartgers M, Besseling J, Lucius B, et al. Clinical characteristics and prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors in subjects screened for familial hypercholesterolemia – a cross sectional study in the Netherlands. Atherosclerosis 2016;252:e203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartgers M, Besseling J, Hovingh G. Attainment of LDL-C treatment target in familial hypercholesterolemia patients: A theoretical model exploring efficacy of current and novel lipid lowering therapies. Atherosclerosis 2016;252:e43-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd-Jones DM, Morris PB, Ballantyne CM, et al. 2016 ACC Expert consensus decision pathway on the role of non-statin therapies for LDL-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2016;68:92-125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr., et al. 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016;68:1-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. Consensus statement by the American Assicoation of Clinical Endocrinologists and Americal College of Endocrinology on the comprehensive Type 2 diabetes management algorithm—2017 executive summary. Endocr Pract 2017;23:207-38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Diabetes Association. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care 2017;40(Supp 1):S64-S74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jansen JP, Incerti D, Mutebi A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sequenced treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted immune modulators. J Med Econ 2017:1-27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis: effectiveness & value evidence report; 2017. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/NECEPAC_RA_Evidence_Report_Final_040717.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2017
   Google Scholar
• Everett BM, Smith RJ, Hiatt WR. Reducing LDL with PCSK9 inhibitors—the clinical benefit of lipid drugs. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1588-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrieta A, Page TF, Veledar E, et al. Economic evaluation of PCSK9 inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular risk from health system and private payer perspectives. PLoS One 2017;12:e0169761
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jena AB, Blumenthal DM, Stevens W, et al. Value of improved lipid control in patients at high risk for adverse cardiac events. Am J Manag Care 2016;22:e199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandra SR, Villa G, Fonarow GC, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of LDL‐C lowering with evolocumab in patients with high cardiovascular risk in the United States. Clin Cardiol 2016;39:313-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazi DS, Moran AE, Coxson PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. JAMA 2016;316:743-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toth PP, Danese M, Villa G, et al. Estimated burden of cardiovascular disease and value-based price range for evolocumab in a high-risk, secondary-prevention population in the US payer context. J Med Econ 2017;20:1-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. PCSK9 inhibitors for treatment of high cholesterol: effectiveness, value, and value-based price benchmarks. Boston, MA: ICER; 2015
   Google Scholar
• American Diabetes Association, Standards of medical care in diabetes—2016. Diabetes Care 2016;39(Suppl1):S1-S112
   Google Scholar
• Huang ES, Liu JY, Moffet HH, et al. Glycemic control, complications, and death in older diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1329-1336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HAW, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000;321:405-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilokthornsakul P, Chaiyakunapruk N, Campbell JD. Does the use of efficacy or effectiveness evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis matter? J Asthma 2016;54:1-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell JD, McQueen RB, Briggs A. The “e” in cost-effectiveness analyses. A case study of omalizumab efficacy and effectiveness for cost-effectiveness analysis evidence. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014;11(Suppl2):S105-S111
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—modeling studies. Value Health 2003;6:9-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawlins M. De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet 2008;372:2152-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faria R, Hernandez Alava M, Manca A, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 17: the use of observational data to inform estimates of treatment effectiveness for technology appraisal: methods for comparative individual patient data. Sheffield: NICE Decision Support Unit; 2015
   Google Scholar
• Doctor JN, Baseman JG, Lober WB, et al. Time-tradeoff utilities for identifying and evaluating a minimum data set for time-critical biosurveillance. Med Decis Making 2008;28:351-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Anabolic therapies for osteoporosis: effectiveness and value, final background and scope. Boston, MA: ICER; 2017. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ICER_Final_Osteo_Scope_010917.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2017
   Google Scholar
• Sarode R, Milling TJ Jr., Refaai MA, et al. Efficacy and safety of a 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in patients on vitamin K antagonists presenting with major bleeding: a randomized, plasma-controlled, phase IIIb study. Circulation 2013;128:1234-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pabinger I, Brenner B, Kalina U, et al. Prothrombin complex concentrate (Beriplex P/N) for emergency anticoagulation reversal: a prospective multinational clinical trial. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6:622-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston FE, Laidlaw ST, Sampson B, et al. Rapid reversal of oral anticoagulation with warfarin by a prothrombin complex concentrate (Beriplex): efficacy and safety in 42 patients. Br J Haematol 2002;116:619-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarode R. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus plasma for urgent vitamin K antagonist reversal: new evidence. Clin Lab Med 2014;34:613-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones CA, Ducis K, Petrozzino J, et al. Prevention of treatment-related fluid overload reduces estimated effective cost of prothrombin complex concentrate in patients requiring rapid vitamin K antagonist reversal. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2016;16:135-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winslow BT, Mary KO, Christian MS, et al. Treatment of Alzheimer disease. Am Family Physician 2011;15:1403-12
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, in NICE Guidance. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011. p 76
   Google Scholar
• Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, et al. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology 2007;68:343-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepp Z, Bloudek LM, Varon SF. Systematic review of migraine prophylaxis adherence and persistence. J Manag Care Pharm 2014;20:22-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aurora S, Dodick DW, Turkel CC, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 1 trial. Cephalalgia 2010;30:793-803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diener H, Dodick DW, Aurora SK, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase of the PREEMPT 2 trial. Cephalalgia 2010;30:804-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Public comments received on ‘Controvesies in Migraine Management’; 2014. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Public_comments_081914_part1_v2.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2017
   Google Scholar
• Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Controversies in migraine management: a technology assessment; 2014. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CTAF_Migraine_Final_Report_081914-2.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2017
   Google Scholar
• Li L, Roddam A, Gitlin M, et al. Persistence with osteoporosis medications among postmenopausal women in the UK General Practice Research Database. Menopause 2012;19:33-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson L, Lundkvist J, Psachoulia E, et al. Persistence with denosumab and persistence with oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a retrospective, observational study, and a meta-analysis. Osteoporosis Int 2015;26:2401-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arden N, Earl S, Fisher DJ, et al. Persistence with teriparatide in patients with osteoporosis: the UK experience. Osteoporosis Int 2006;17:1626-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chastek B, Cheng L-i, White JC, et al. Persistence with osteoporosis therapies in postmenopausal women in a large US national health plan. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:1625-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durden E, Pinto L, Lopez-Gonzalez L, et al. Two-year persistence and compliance with osteoporosis therapies among postmenopausal women in a commercially insured population in the United States. Arch Osteoporosis 2017;12:22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heaney R, Watson P. Variability in the measured response of bone to teriparatide. Osteoporosis Int 2011;22:1703-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010;26:334-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ 2017:1-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicod E, Kanavos P. Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy 2012;108:167-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafrin J, Bruno A, MacEwan JP, et al. Physician and patient preferences for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation therapies. Value Health 2016;19:451-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 2005;353:487-97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long Q, Little RJ, Lin X. Causal inference in hybrid intervention trials involving treatment choice. J Am Stat Assoc 2008;103:474-84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard L, Thornicroft G. Patient preference randomised controlled trials in mental health research. Br J Psychiatry 2006;188:303-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le QA, Doctor JN, Zoellner LA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prolonged exposure therapy versus pharmacotherapy and treatment choice in posttraumatic stress disorder (the Optimizing PTSD Treatment Trial): a doubly randomized preference trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2014;75:222-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCaffery KJ, Turner R, Macaskill P, et al. Determining the impact of informed choice separating treatment effects from the effects of choice and selection in randomized trials. Med Decis Making 2011;31:229-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark NM, Janz NK, Dodge JA, et al. The effect of patient choice of intervention on health outcomes. Contemp Clin Trials 2008;29:679-86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janevic MR, Janz NK, Dodge JA, et al. The role of choice in health education intervention trials: a review and case study. Social Sci Med 2003;56:1581-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. The measurement of individual utility and social welfare. J Health Econ 1998;17:39-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abellan-Perpinan JM, Pinto-Prades JL. Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination? Health Econ 1999;8:701-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 1993;24:227-38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Doctor J, Stolk E. A nonparametric elicitation of the equity-efficiency trade-off in cost-utility analysis. J Health Econ 2005;24:655-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 1999;49:63-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ 1997;6:117-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolk EA, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy 2002;59:53-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakdawalla D, Malani A, Reif J. The insurance value of medical innovation. J Public Econ 2017;145:94-102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakdawalla DN, Chou JW, Linthicum MT, et al. Evaluating expected costs and benefits of granting access to new treatments on the basis of progression-free survival in non–small-cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:196-202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malani A, Philipson T. Clinical trials, the market for observations, and the cost of medical R&D. The University of Chicago; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids. Arthritis Res Ther 2005;7:R1046-51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalso E, Edwards JE, Moore RA, et al. Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety. Pain 2004;112:372-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furlan AD, Sandoval JA, Mailis-Gagnon A, et al. Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects. CMAJ 2006;174:1589-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar