The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or patient perceived health status, are reported directly by the patient and are powerful tools to inform patients, clinicians, and policy-makers about morbidity and 'patient suffering', especially in chronic diseases. Patient-reported outcomes provide information on the patient experience and can be the target of therapeutic intervention. Patient-reported outcomes can improve the quality of patient care by creating a holistic approach to clinical decision-making; however, PROs are not routinely used as key outcome measures in major cardiovascular clinical trials. Thus, limited information is available on the impact of cardiovascular therapeutics on PROs to guide patient-level clinical decision-making or policy-level decision-making. Cardiovascular clinical research should shift its focus to include PROs when evaluating the efficacy of therapeutic interventions, and PRO assessments should be scientifically rigorous. The European Society of Cardiology and other professional societies can take action to influence the uptake of PRO data in the research and clinical communities. This process of integrating PRO data into comprehensive efficacy evaluations will ultimately improve the quality of care for patients across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease.

Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report.

The evaluation of the cost and health implications of agreeing to cover a new health technology is best accomplished using a model that mathematically combines inputs from various sources, together with assumptions about how these fit together and what might happen in reality. This need to make assumptions, the complexity of the resulting framework, the technical knowledge required, as well as funding by interested parties have led many decision makers to distrust the results of models. To assist stakeholders reviewing a model's report, questions pertaining to the credibility of a model were developed. Because credibility is insufficient, questions regarding relevance of the model results were also created. The questions are formulated such that they are readily answered and they are supplemented by helper questions that provide additional detail. Some responses indicate strongly that a model should not be used for decision making: these trigger a "fatal flaw" indicator. It is hoped that the use of this questionnaire, along with the three others in the series, will help disseminate what to look for in comparative effectiveness evidence, improve practices by researchers supplying these data, and ultimately facilitate their use by health care decision makers.

Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Budget impact analyses (BIAs) are an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of a health care intervention and are increasingly required by reimbursement authorities as part of a listing or reimbursement submission. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this report was to present updated guidance on methods for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses. This update was needed, in part, because of developments in BIA methods as well as a growing interest, particularly in emerging markets, in matters related to affordability and population health impacts of health care interventions. METHODS: The Task Force was approved by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Health Sciences Policy Council and appointed by its Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of BIAs; worked in academia and industry and as advisors to governments; and came from several countries in North America and South America, Oceania, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force solicited comments on the drafts from a core group of external reviewers and, more broadly, from the membership of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RESULTS: The Task Force recommends that the design of a BIA for a new health care intervention should take into account relevant features of the health care system, possible access restrictions, the anticipated uptake of the new intervention, and the use and effects of the current and new interventions. The key elements of a BIA include estimating the size of the eligible population, the current mix of treatments and the expected mix after the introduction of the new intervention, the cost of the treatment mixes, and any changes expected in condition-related costs. Where possible, the BIA calculations should be performed by using a simple cost calculator approach because of its ease of use for budget holders. In instances, however, in which the changes in eligible population size, disease severity mix, or treatment patterns cannot be credibly captured by using the cost calculator approach, a cohort or patient-level condition-specific model may be used to estimate the budget impact of the new intervention, accounting appropriately for those entering and leaving the eligible population over time. In either case, the BIA should use data that reflect values specific to a particular decision maker's population. Sensitivity analysis should be of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision maker. The validation of the model should include at least face validity with decision makers and verification of the calculations. Data sources for the BIA should include published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for the efficacy and safety of the current and new interventions as well as the decision maker's own population for the other parameter estimates, where possible. Other data sources include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information, and, in special circumstances, expert opinion. Reporting of the BIA should provide detailed information about the input parameter values and calculations at a level of detail that would allow another modeler to replicate the analysis. The outcomes of the BIA should be presented in the format of interest to health care decision makers. In a computer program, options should be provided for different categories of costs to be included or excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a framework for the BIA, provide guidance on the acquisition and use of data, and offer a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific BIA guidelines but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.

Cost-benefit analysis of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus amiodarone in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter defibrillators are effective in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with high risk profiles. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-benefit assessment of prevention of sudden cardiac death with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) vs. amiodarone from the Canadian health-care system perspective. METHODS: A simulation model that estimates the patient's course following an implantation with an ICD or initiation of amiodarone treatment was created. A thousand pairs of patients with identical characteristics in each treatment group, with similar demographic profiles as observed in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) were simulated. Based on the simulated individual patient characteristics, the model estimated the timing of severe arrhythmic events and deaths due to other causes and implemented the consequences at the time of the events. Patients might die at the time of severe arrhythmia (sudden cardiac death) or survive and become secondary prevention cases and be exposed to a higher risk of severe arrhythmia for the following 6 months. The rates of arrhythmia and death due to other causes were assumed to be the same, whereas the cases of fatality from severe arrhythmia differed between treatments. During the course of the simulation, the clinical (i.e., deaths) and economic outcomes were tallied for both treatment groups. All model parameters were obtained from the literature. The primary data source for clinical inputs was the published results of the SCD-HeFT trial which investigated the impact of ICDs on patients' survival in primary prevention of sudden cardiac deaths compared to amiodarone and conventional therapy. The value of a statistical life (CND$ 5.8 million) was obtained from an analysis previously performed by Health Canada. The direct medical costs and monetary value of lives saved were estimated over 5 years. Sensitivity analyses on key parameters were carried out. The most important study limitation was using two different sources to derive the age dependent clinical risks. This issue was resolved by calibrating the derived risks to account for the population differences. RESULTS: The model predicted that the overall mortality would be reduced by 19.1% (7.1% absolute reduction) with ICD compared to amiodarone over 5 years. The incremental benefit with ICD was estimated at CND$526,700 and additional cost at CND$28,300, which translated into a 0.05 cost: benefit ratio--around 1: 20 return of investment. CONCLUSION: In Canada, ICDs are a worthwhile alternative to amiodarone in the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.