IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i2p165-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Heterogeneity in Histology-Independent Technologies and the Implications for Cost-Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Murphy

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • Lindsay Claxton

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • Robert Hodgson

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • David Glynn

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • Lucy Beresford

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • Matthew Walton

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • Alexis Llewellyn

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • Stephen Palmer

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

  • Sofia Dias

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK)

Abstract

Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and a number of international health technology assessment agencies have recently undertaken appraisals of histology-independent technologies (HITs). A strong and untested assumption inherent in the submissions included identical clinical response across all tumour histologies, including new histologies unrepresented in the trial. Challenging this assumption and exploring the potential for heterogeneity has the potential to impact upon cost-effectiveness. Method Using published response data for a HIT, a Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM) was used to identify heterogeneity in response and to estimate the probability of response for each histology included in single-arm studies, which informed the submission for the HIT, larotrectinib. The probability of response for a new histology was estimated. Results were inputted into a simplified response-based economic model using hypothetical parameters. Histology-independent and histology-specific incremental cost-effectiveness ratios accounting for heterogeneity were generated. Results The results of the BHM show considerable heterogeneity in response rates across histologies. The predicted probability of response estimated by the BHM is 60.9% (95% credible interval 16.0; 91.8%), lower than the naively pooled probability of 74.5%. A mean response probability of 56.9% (0.2; 99.9%) is predicted for an unrepresented histology. Based on the economic analysis, the probability of the hypothetical HIT being cost-effective under the assumption of identical response is 78%. Allowing for heterogeneity, the probability of various approval decisions being cost-effective ranges from 93% to 11%. Conclusions Central to the challenge of reimbursement of HITs is the potential for heterogeneity. This study illustrates how heterogeneity in clinical effectiveness can result in highly variable and uncertain estimates of cost-effectiveness. This analysis can help improve understanding of the consequences of histology-independent versus histology-specific decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Murphy & Lindsay Claxton & Robert Hodgson & David Glynn & Lucy Beresford & Matthew Walton & Alexis Llewellyn & Stephen Palmer & Sofia Dias, 2021. "Exploring Heterogeneity in Histology-Independent Technologies and the Implications for Cost-Effectiveness," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 165-178, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:165-178
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20980327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20980327
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20980327?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:2:p:165-178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.