Value of External Data in the Extrapolation of Survival Data: A Study Using the NJR Data Set.

BACKGROUND: Extrapolation of time-to-event data can be a critical component of cost-effectiveness analysis. OBJECTIVES: To contrast the value of external data on treatment effects as a selection aid in model fitting to the clinical data or for the direct extrapolation of survival. METHODS: We assume the existence of external summary data on both treatment and control and consider two scenarios: availability of external individual patient data (IPD) on the control only and an absence of external IPD. We describe how the summary data can be used to extrapolate survival or to assess the plausibility of extrapolations of the clinical data. We assess the merit of either approach using a comparison of cemented and cementless total hip replacement as a case study. Merit is judged by comparing incremental net benefit (INB) obtained in scenarios with incomplete IPD with that derived from modeling external IPD on both treatment and control. RESULTS: Measures of fit with the external summary data did not identify survival model specifications that best estimated INB. Addition of external IPD for the control only did not improve estimates of INB. Extrapolation of survival using the external summary data comparing treatment and control improved estimates of INB. CONCLUSIONS: Our case study indicates that summary data comparing treatment and control are more valuable than IPD limited to the control when extrapolating event rates for cost-effectiveness analysis. These data are best exploited in direct extrapolation of event rates rather than as an aid to select extrapolations on the basis of the clinical data.

Cost-effectiveness of pegylated interferon and ribavirin for patients with chronic hepatitis C treated in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study assesses whether pegylated interferon and ribavirin is cost-effective compared with no antiviral treatment provided in routine clinical practice, for different patient subgroups. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) uses a Markov decision model to estimate the lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of antiviral treatment compared with no treatment. The model is populated with data on sustained virological responses, costs, and transition probabilities all taken from a large representative sample of UK cases and centers (Trent HCV database). RESULTS: The CEA found that pegylated interferon and ribavirin was cost-effective for most patient subgroups. The CEA found that for patients with genotype non-1, the intervention led to cost reductions and gains of at least 0.5 QALYs. For genotype 1 cases with mild or moderate disease, and younger cirrhotic patients (aged 40 or less), costs per QALY remained below 20,000 pound sterling ($40,000 or 29,000 euro). For genotype 1 cases with cirrhosis aged 50, the mean cost per QALY rose to over 60,000 pound sterling ($120,000 or 87,000 euro). CONCLUSIONS: The study concludes that, based on cost and effectiveness data collected from routine clinical practice, treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is generally cost-effective. The study shows that there are variations according to patient subgroup and for older (aged 50 or over) genotype 1 patients with cirrhosis, antiviral treatment appears less cost-effective.

Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of the three most commonly chosen types of prosthesis for total hip replacement. DESIGN: Lifetime cost effectiveness model with parameters estimated from individual patient data obtained from three large national databases. SETTING: English National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 55 to 84 undergoing primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: Total hip replacement using either cemented, cementless, or hybrid prostheses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost (£), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L, where 0 represents death and 1 perfect health), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and the probability that each prosthesis type is the most cost effective at alternative thresholds of willingness to pay for a QALY gain. RESULTS: Lifetime costs were generally lowest with cemented prostheses, and postoperative quality of life and lifetime QALYs were highest with hybrid prostheses. For example, in women aged 70 mean costs were £6900 ($11 000; €8200) for cemented prostheses, £7800 for cementless prostheses, and £7500 for hybrid prostheses; mean postoperative EQ-5D scores were 0.78, 0.80, and 0.81, and the corresponding lifetime QALYs were 9.0, 9.2, and 9.3 years. The incremental cost per QALY for hybrid compared with cemented prostheses was £2500. If the threshold willingness to pay for a QALY gain exceeded £10 000, the probability that hybrid prostheses were most cost effective was about 70%. Hybrid prostheses have the highest probability of being the most cost effective in all subgroups, except in women aged 80, where cemented prostheses were most cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented prostheses were the least costly type for total hip replacement, but for most patient groups hybrid prostheses were the most cost effective. Cementless prostheses did not provide sufficient improvement in health outcomes to justify their additional costs.