Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

Coenzyme Q10 to manage chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure is a debilitating condition that accounts for an annual NHS spend of £2.3B. Low levels of endogenous coenzyme Q10 may exacerbate chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms and slow progression. As statins are thought to block the production of coenzyme Q10, supplementation might be particularly beneficial for patients taking statins. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 in managing chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: A systematic review that included randomised trials comparing coenzyme Q10 plus standard care with standard care alone in chronic heart failure. Trials restricted to chronic heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction were excluded. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 5.2). A planned individual participant data meta-analysis was not possible and meta-analyses were mostly based on aggregate data from publications. Potential effect modification was examined using meta-regression. A Markov model used treatment effects from the meta-analysis and baseline mortality and hospitalisation from an observational UK cohort. Costs were evaluated from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and expressed in Great British pounds at a 2019/20 price base. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3.5% annual rate. RESULTS: A total of 26 trials, comprising 2250 participants, were included in the systematic review. Many trials were reported poorly and were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Meta-analysis suggested a possible benefit of coenzyme Q10 on all-cause mortality (seven trials, 1371 participants; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.03). The results for short-term functional outcomes were more modest or unclear. There was no indication of increased adverse events with coenzyme Q10. Meta-regression found no evidence of treatment interaction with statins. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis produced incremental costs of £4878, incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.34 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3650. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year coenzyme Q10 had a high probability (95.2% and 95.8%, respectively) of being more cost-effective than standard care alone. Scenario analyses in which the population and other model assumptions were varied all found coenzyme Q10 to be cost-effective. The expected value of perfect information suggested that a new trial could be valuable. LIMITATIONS: For most outcomes, data were available from few trials and different trials contributed to different outcomes. There were concerns about risk of bias and whether or not the results from included trials were applicable to a typical UK population. A lack of individual participant data meant that planned detailed analyses of effect modifiers were not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggested that, if prescribed, coenzyme Q10 has the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, given important concerns about risk of bias, plausibility of effect sizes and applicability of the evidence base, establishing whether or not coenzyme Q10 is genuinely effective in a typical UK population is important, particularly as coenzyme Q10 has not been subject to the scrutiny of drug-licensing processes. Stronger evidence is needed before considering its prescription in the NHS. FUTURE WORK: A new independent, well-designed clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 in a typical UK heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction population may be warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106189. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People living with chronic heart failure suffer from shortness of breath, ankle swelling, tiredness, frequent stays in hospital and reduced quality of life and have shorter lives. The NHS spends over £2 billion each year managing chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 is a vitamin-like substance made by the body that helps cells produce energy. Low levels of coenzyme Q10 in heart muscle may lead to, or exacerbate, chronic heart failure. Taking coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms or slow deterioration. To the best of our knowledge, we found all randomised clinical trials of coenzyme Q10 in patients with the type of chronic heart failure caused by muscle weakness (i.e. heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, where the heart's pumping function is weaker than normal). We asked the research groups responsible for these trials to provide the patient data that they had collected in their trials. Most research groups did not share their data and so we mainly used information from published trial reports. This limited our planned analyses. We found that taking coenzyme Q10 alongside usual treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction potentially reduced deaths by approximately one-third and reduced readmission to hospital by around 40%. However, these results were uncertain. Side effects were not increased. We had some concerns about how reliable the data were, and it is not clear how well the results apply to UK patients. We also worked out what the benefits and costs to the NHS would be if coenzyme Q10 became available on prescription for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Our model found that prescription could be worthwhile; however, a new trial is needed first to make sure that coenzyme Q10 improves outcomes for patients. A new trial would be particularly important because coenzyme Q10 has not been assessed in the same way as prescribed medicines. A new trial could make sure that there is better evidence about whether or not prescribing would be a good use of NHS resources.

Non-invasive imaging software to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: QAngio® XA 3D/QFR® (three-dimensional/quantitative flow ratio) imaging software (Medis Medical Imaging Systems BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) and CAAS® vFFR® (vessel fractional flow reserve) imaging software (Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, the Netherlands) are non-invasive technologies to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses, which can be alternatives to invasive fractional flow reserve assessment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all evidence on QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, implementation and economic analyses. We searched MEDLINE and other databases to January 2020 for studies where either technology was used and compared with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate stenosis. The risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using QAngio XA 3D/QFR. We developed a de novo decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR relative to invasive fractional flow reserve or invasive coronary angiography alone. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the sources of data used to populate the model and alternative assumptions. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies (5440 patients) of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and three studies (500 patients) of CAAS vFFR were included. QAngio XA 3D/QFR had good diagnostic accuracy to predict functionally significant fractional flow reserve (≤ 0.80 cut-off point); contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval 78% to 90%) and a specificity of 91% (95% confidence interval 85% to 95%). A total of 95% of quantitative flow ratio measurements were within 0.14 of the fractional flow reserve. Data on the diagnostic accuracy of CAAS vFFR were limited and a full meta-analysis was not feasible. There were very few data on clinical and implementation outcomes. The simulation found that quantitative flow ratio slightly increased the revascularisation rate when compared with fractional flow reserve, from 40.2% to 42.0%. Quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve resulted in similar numbers of subsequent coronary events. The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that the test strategy with the highest net benefit was invasive coronary angiography with confirmatory fractional flow reserve. The next best strategies were QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR (without fractional flow reserve). However, the difference in net benefit between this best strategy and the next best was small, ranging from 0.007 to 0.012 quality-adjusted life-years (or equivalently £140-240) per patient diagnosed at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Diagnostic accuracy evidence on CAAS vFFR, and evidence on the clinical impact of QAngio XA 3D/QFR, were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative flow ratio as measured by QAngio XA 3D/QFR has good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with fractional flow reserve and is preferable to standard invasive coronary angiography alone. It appears to have very similar cost-effectiveness to fractional flow reserve and, therefore, pending further evidence on general clinical benefits and specific subgroups, could be a reasonable alternative. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAAS vFFR are uncertain. Randomised controlled trial evidence evaluating the effect of quantitative flow ratio on clinical and patient-centred outcomes is needed. FUTURE WORK: Studies are required to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical feasibility of CAAS vFFR. Large ongoing randomised trials will hopefully inform the clinical value of QAngio XA 3D/QFR. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154575. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Stable angina is a type of chest pain; left untreated, it can lead to heart failure, heart attack and sudden death. To avoid these outcomes, patients may require surgical intervention to open obstructed arteries, known as 'revascularisation'. Patients who might need revascularisation undergo tests to identify blocked arteries. The last line of testing is called invasive fractional flow reserve assessment. This is an invasive measurement of blood flow that involves inserting a wire into an artery after the patient has taken drugs to dilate the artery. It carries some risks and may have side effects. Non-invasive tests have been proposed to precede or replace invasive fractional flow reserve assessments. These include QAngio^® XA 3D/QFR^® (three-dimensional/quantitative flow ratio) (Medis Medical Imaging Systems BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) and CAAS^® vFFR^® (vessel fractional flow reserve) (Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, the Netherlands) imaging software. This project investigated whether or not these technologies can provide accurate assessments of blood pressure, and if they are a reasonable use of NHS resources. A thorough review of all the literature on the technologies was performed. All data were combined and re-analysed to determine whether or not the tests accurately predict the need for revascularisation and to consider their clinical benefits. An economic analysis was conducted to investigate whether or not using either of these technologies is economically viable. The project found that QAngio XA 3D/QFR can accurately measure blood flow, may be a reasonable alternative to fractional flow reserve, pending more evidence on benefits to patients' health, and is a reasonable use of NHS resources. The current evidence for CAAS vFFR is too limited to draw any firm conclusions.

A Review of Web-Based Tools for Value-of-Information Analysis.

Value-of-information analysis (VOI) is a decision-theoretic approach that is used to inform reimbursement decisions, optimise trial design and set research priorities. The application of VOI analysis for informing policy decisions in practice has been limited due, in part, to the perceived complexity associated with the calculation of VOI measures. Recent efforts have resulted in the development of efficient methods to estimate VOI measures and the development of user-friendly web-based tools to facilitate VOI calculations. We review the existing web-based tools including Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information (SAVI), the web interface to the BCEA (Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) R package (BCEAweb), Rapid Assessment of Need for Evidence (RANE), and Value of Information for Cardiovascular Trials and Other Comparative Research (VICTOR). We describe what each tool is designed to do, the inputs they require, and the outputs they produce. Finally, we discuss how tools for VOI calculations might be improved in the future to facilitate the use of VOI analysis in practice.

Practical metrics for establishing the health benefits of research to support research prioritisation.

INTRODUCTION: We present practical metrics for estimating the expected health benefits of specific research proposals. These can be used by research funders, researchers and healthcare decision-makers within low-income and middle-income countries to support evidence-based research prioritisation. METHODS: The methods require three key assessments: (1) the current level of uncertainty around the endpoints the proposed study will measure; (2) how uncertainty impacts on the health benefits and costs of healthcare programmes and (3) the health opportunity costs imposed by programme costs. Research is valuable because it can improve health by informing the choice of which programmes should be implemented. We provide a Microsoft Excel tool to allow readers to generate estimates of the health benefits of research studies based on these three assessments. The tool can be populated using existing studies, existing cost-effectiveness models and expert opinion. Where such evidence is not available, the tool can quantify the value of research under different assumptions. Estimates of the health benefits of research can be considered alongside research costs, and the consequences of delaying implementation until research reports, to determine whether research is worthwhile. We illustrate the method using a case study of research on HIV self-testing programmes in Malawi. This analysis combines data from the literature with outputs from the HIV synthesis model. RESULTS: For this case study, we found a costing study that could be completed and inform decision making within 1 year offered the highest health benefits (67 000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted). Research on outcomes improved population health to a lesser extent (12 000 DALYs averted) and only if carried out alongside programme implementation. CONCLUSION: Our work provides a method for estimating the health benefits of research in a practical and timely fashion. This can be used to support accountable use of research funds.

Value of Information Analytical Methods: Report 2 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

The allocation of healthcare resources among competing priorities requires an assessment of the expected costs and health effects of investing resources in the activities and of the opportunity cost of the expenditure. To date, much effort has been devoted to assessing the expected costs and health effects, but there remains an important need to also reflect the consequences of uncertainty in resource allocation decisions and the value of further research to reduce uncertainty. Decision making with uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal, resulting in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to better inform resource decisions. This value can be quantified using value of information (VOI) analysis. This report from the ISPOR VOI Task Force describes methods for computing 4 VOI measures: the expected value of perfect information, expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI), expected value of sample information (EVSI), and expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). Several methods exist for computing EVPPI and EVSI, and this report provides guidance on selecting the most appropriate method based on the features of the decision problem. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing VOI analyses. The software needed to compute VOI is discussed, and areas for future research are highlighted.

Value of Information Analysis for Research Decisions-An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Value of Information Analysis Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

Healthcare resource allocation decisions made under conditions of uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal. In a resource constrained system in which there is a fixed budget, these suboptimal decisions will result in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to make better resource allocation decisions. This value can be quantified using a value of information (VOI) analysis. This report, from the ISPOR VOI Task Force, introduces VOI analysis, defines key concepts and terminology, and outlines the role of VOI for supporting decision making, including the steps involved in undertaking and interpreting VOI analyses. The report is specifically aimed at those tasked with making decisions about the adoption of healthcare or the funding of healthcare research. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing the results of VOI analyses.

Brodalumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal process, brodalumab was assessed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of its use in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics Technology Assessment Group at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This article provides a summary of the Evidence Review Group's review of the company's submission, the Evidence Review Group report and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance issued in March 2018. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from three well-conducted, multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trials. The trials demonstrated that brodalumab statistically significantly reduced the severity of psoriasis and its impact on health-related quality of life, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks. In comparison with ustekinumab, statistically significantly more patients taking brodalumab had reduced psoriasis severity at 12 weeks. Psoriasis severity and quality of life also appeared improved at 52 weeks, although statistical significance was not assessed. Withdrawal rates were comparable to drug survival rates of other biological therapies and rates of adverse events were similar between brodalumab and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis was presented, comparing brodalumab with other therapies available at the same point in the treatment pathway (i.e. in patients for whom standard systemic therapy or phototherapy is inadequately effective, not tolerated or contraindicated). The network meta-analysis ranked treatments in order of effectiveness, in terms of achieving different levels of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response. The results indicated that brodalumab had a similar probability of response to ixekizumab, secukinumab and infliximab and a higher probability of response than ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, apremilast, dimethyl fumarate and placebo. The company's economic model compared nine treatment sequences that included three lines of active therapy, consisting of brodalumab and other comparators recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, followed by best supportive care. The sequence with brodalumab in the first-line position dominated sequences that started with adalimumab, infliximab, secukinumab and ustekinumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the brodalumab sequence compared to less effective and non-dominated sequences ranged from £7145 (vs. the etanercept sequence) to £13,353 (vs. the dimethyl fumarate sequence) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the more costly and effective ixekizumab sequence was £894,010 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared to the brodalumab sequence. At a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the brodalumab sequence had the highest probability of being cost effective (96%). The main limitation of the company's economic model was the restrictive nature of the sequences compared. Twelve separate scenarios based on key uncertainties were explored by the Evidence Review Group. The only scenarios where brodalumab was ranked lower than first were not considered to be more appropriate or plausible than the assumptions or scenarios included in the company's base case. The treatment rankings identified in the Evidence Review Group's alternative base case were identical to those derived from the company's base case model. At the first National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee meeting, the Committee concluded that brodalumab appears to be as effective as other anti-interleukin-17 agents and is cost effective, based on the discount agreed in the patient access scheme. Brodalumab is recommended as an option for treating adults with severe plaque psoriasis (defined by a total Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 10 or more and a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of more than 10) who have not responded to other systemic non-biological therapies. Brodalumab should be stopped at 12 weeks if the psoriasis has not responded adequately.

Value of Information Choices that Influence Estimates: A Systematic Review of Prevailing Considerations.

BACKGROUND: Although value of information (VOI) analyses are increasingly advocated and used for research prioritization and reimbursement decisions, the interpretation and usefulness of VOI outcomes depend critically on the underlying choices and assumptions used in the analysis. In this article, we present a structured overview of all items reported in literature to potentially influence VOI outcomes. Use of this overview increases awareness and transparency of choices and assumptions underpinning VOI outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify aspects of VOI analyses that were found to potentially influence VOI outcomes. Identified aspects were grouped to develop a structured overview. Explanations were defined for all items included in the overview. RESULTS: We retrieved 687 unique papers, of which 71 original papers and 8 reviews were included. In the full text of these 79 papers, 16 aspects were found that may influence VOI outcomes. These aspects related to the underlying evidence (bias, synthesis, heterogeneity, correlation), uncertainty (structural, future pricing), model (relevance, approach, population), choices in VOI calculation (estimation technique, implementation level, population size, perspective), and aspects specifically for assessing the value of future study designs (reversal costs, efficient estimator). These aspects were aggregated into 7 items to provide a structured overview. CONCLUSION: The developed overview should increase awareness of key choices underlying VOI analysis and facilitate structured reporting of such choices and interpretation of the ensuing VOI outcomes by researchers and policy makers. Use of this overview should improve prioritization and reimbursement decisions.

Simulation Modeling and Metamodeling to Inform National and International HIV Policies for Children and Adolescents.

OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH: Computer-based simulation models serve an important purpose in informing HIV care for children and adolescents. We review current model-based approaches to informing pediatric and adolescent HIV estimates and guidelines. FINDINGS: Clinical disease simulation models and epidemiologic models are used to inform global and regional estimates of numbers of children and adolescents living with HIV and in need of antiretroviral therapy, to develop normative guidelines addressing strategies for diagnosis and treatment of HIV in children, and to forecast future need for pediatric and adolescent antiretroviral therapy formulations and commodities. To improve current model-generated estimates and policy recommendations, better country-level and regional-level data are needed about children living with HIV, as are improved data about survival and treatment outcomes for children with perinatal HIV infection as they age into adolescence and adulthood. In addition, novel metamodeling and value of information methods are being developed to improve the transparency of model methods and results, as well as to allow users to more easily tailor model-based analyses to their own settings. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial progress has been made in using models to estimate the size of the pediatric and adolescent HIV epidemic, to inform the development of guidelines for children and adolescents affected by HIV, and to support targeted implementation of policy recommendations to maximize impact. Ongoing work will address key limitations and further improve these model-based projections.

Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that predominantly affects the skin. Adalimumab (HUMIRA®, AbbVie, Maidenhead, UK), etanercept (Enbrel®, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) and ustekinumab (STELARA®, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Titusville, NJ, USA) are the three biological treatments currently licensed for psoriasis in children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab within their respective licensed indications for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children and young people. DATA SOURCES: Searches of the literature and regulatory sources, contact with European psoriasis registries, company submissions and clinical study reports from manufacturers, and previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal documentation. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were summarised and subjected to detailed critical appraisal. A network meta-analysis incorporating adult data was developed to connect the effectiveness data in children and young people and populate a de novo decision-analytic model. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with each other and with either methotrexate or best supportive care (BSC), depending on the position of the intervention in the management pathway. RESULTS: Of the 2386 non-duplicate records identified, nine studies (one randomised controlled trial for each drug plus six observational studies) were included in the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. Etanercept and ustekinumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than placebo at 12 weeks' follow-up. The magnitude and persistence of the effects beyond 12 weeks is less certain. Adalimumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than methotrexate for some but not all measures at 16 weeks. Quality-of-life benefits were inconsistent across different measures. There was limited evidence of excess short-term adverse events; however, the possibility of rare events cannot be excluded. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of biologics in children and young people exceeded NICE's usual threshold for cost-effectiveness and were reduced significantly only when combined assumptions that align with those made in the management of psoriasis in adults were adopted. LIMITATIONS: The clinical evidence base for short- and long-term outcomes was limited in terms of total participant numbers, length of follow-up and the absence of young children. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of clinical and economic evidence to inform the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments in children and young people imposed a number of strong assumptions and uncertainties. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with treatment and the number of hospitalisations in children and young people are areas of considerable uncertainty. The findings suggest that biological treatments may not be cost-effective for the management of psoriasis in children and young people at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, unless a number of strong assumptions about HRQoL and the costs of BSC are combined. Registry data on biological treatments would help determine safety, patterns of treatment switching, impact on comorbidities and long-term withdrawal rates. Further research is also needed into the resource use and costs associated with BSC. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials (including comparisons against placebo) could substantially reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of biological treatments in biologic-experienced populations of children and young people, particularly in younger children. Such trials should establish the impact of biological therapies on HRQoL in this population, ideally by collecting direct estimates of EuroQol-5 Dimensions for Youth (EQ-5D-Y) utilities. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039494. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs.

Decisions about the adoption of medical interventions are informed by evidence on their costs and effects. For a range of reasons, evidence relating to medical devices may be limited. The decision to adopt a device early in its life cycle when the evidence base is least mature may impact on the prospects of acquiring further evidence to reduce uncertainties. Equally, rejecting a device will result in no uptake in practice and hence no chance to learn about performance. Decision options such as 'only in research' or 'approval with research' can overcome these issues by allowing patients early access to promising new technologies while limiting the risks associated with making incorrect decisions until more evidence or learning is established. In this paper, we set out the issues relating to uncertainty and the value of research specific to devices: learning curve effects, incremental device innovation, investment and irrecoverable costs, and dynamic pricing. We show the circumstances under which an only in research or approval with research scheme may be an appropriate policy choice. We also consider how the value of additional research might be shared between the manufacturer and health sector to help inform who might reasonably be expected to conduct the research needed. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Comprehensive Algorithm for Approval of Health Technologies With, Without, or Only in Research: The Key Principles for Informing Coverage Decisions.

BACKGROUND: The value of evidence about the performance of a technology and the value of access to a technology are central to policy decisions regarding coverage with, without, or only in research and managed entry (or risk-sharing) agreements. OBJECTIVES: We aim to outline the key principles of what assessments are needed to inform "only in research" (OIR) or "approval with research" (AWR) recommendations, in addition to approval or rejection. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive algorithm to inform the sequence of assessments and judgments that lead to different types of guidance: OIR, AWR, Approve, or Reject. This algorithm identifies the order in which assessments might be made, how similar guidance might be arrived at through different combinations of considerations, and when guidance might change. RESULTS: The key principles are whether the technology is expected to be cost-effective; whether the technology has significant irrecoverable costs; whether additional research is needed; whether research is possible with approval and whether there are opportunity costs that once committed by approval cannot be recovered; and whether there are effective price reductions. Determining expected cost-effectiveness is only a first step. In addition to AWR for technologies expected to be cost-effective and OIR for those not expected to be cost-effective, there are other important circumstances when OIR should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: These principles demonstrate that cost-effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for approval. Even when research is possible with approval, OIR may be appropriate when a technology is expected to be cost-effective due to significant irrecoverable costs.