IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v1y2017i2d10.1007_s41669-016-0001-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issues Related to the Frequency of Exploratory Analyses by Evidence Review Groups in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Kaltenthaler

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Christopher Carroll

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Daniel Hill-McManus

    (Bangor University)

  • Alison Scope

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Michael Holmes

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Stephen Rice

    (Newcastle University)

  • Micah Rose

    (University of Southampton)

  • Paul Tappenden

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Nerys Woolacott

    (University of York)

Abstract

Background Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) critically appraise company submissions as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. As part of their critique of the evidence submitted by companies, the ERGs undertake exploratory analyses to explore uncertainties in the company’s model. The aim of this study was to explore pre-defined factors that might influence or predict the extent of ERG exploratory analyses. Objective The aim of this study was to explore predefined factors that might influence or predict the extent of ERG exploratory analyses. Methods We undertook content analysis of over 400 documents, including ERG reports and related documentation for the 100 most recent STAs (2009–2014) for which guidance has been published. Relevant data were extracted from the documents and narrative synthesis was used to summarise the extracted data. All data were extracted and checked by two researchers. Results Forty different companies submitted documents as part of the NICE STA process. The most common disease area covered by the STAs was cancer (44%), and most ERG reports (n = 93) contained at least one exploratory analysis. The incidence and frequency of ERG exploratory analyses does not appear to be related to any developments in the appraisal process, the disease area covered by the STA, or the company’s base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). However, there does appear to be a pattern in the mean number of analyses conducted by particular ERGs, but the reasons for this are unclear and potentially complex. Conclusions No clear patterns were identified regarding the presence or frequency of exploratory analyses, apart from the mean number conducted by individual ERGs. More research is needed to understand this relationship.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Kaltenthaler & Christopher Carroll & Daniel Hill-McManus & Alison Scope & Michael Holmes & Stephen Rice & Micah Rose & Paul Tappenden & Nerys Woolacott, 2017. "Issues Related to the Frequency of Exploratory Analyses by Evidence Review Groups in the NICE Single Technology Appraisal Process," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 99-108, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0001-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-016-0001-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-016-0001-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-016-0001-4?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Ryuichi Ohta & Yoshinori Ryu & Daisuke Kataoka & Chiaki Sano, 2021. "Effectiveness and Challenges in Local Self-Governance: Multifunctional Autonomy in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    3. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    4. Scott Metcalfe & Rachel Grocott, 2010. "Comments on “Simoens, S. Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966”—New Zealand in Fact Has No Cost-Effectiveness Threshold," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-4, April.
    5. Marieke Krol & Jocé Papenburg & Siok Swan Tan & Werner Brouwer & Leona Hakkaart, 2016. "A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(4), pages 391-402, May.
    6. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    8. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Katharina Schremser & Wolf Rogowski & Sigrid Adler-Reichel & Amanda Tufman & Rudolf Huber & Björn Stollenwerk, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1215-1228, November.
    11. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    12. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & Matthew Franklin & Lieven Annemans & Nick Verhaeghe & Martin Eden & Jasdeep Hayre & Sarah Rodgers & Aziz Sheikh & Anthony Avery, 2014. "Cost Effectiveness of a Pharmacist-Led Information Technology Intervention for Reducing Rates of Clinically Important Errors in Medicines Management in General Practices (PINCER)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 573-590, June.
    13. Job F. H. Eijsink & Mohamed N. M. T. Al Khayat & Cornelis Boersma & Peter G. J. Horst & Jan C. Wilschut & Maarten J. Postma, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus screening, and subsequent monitoring or treatment among pregnant women in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 75-88, February.
    14. Stefano Capri & Rosella Levaggi, 2011. "Shifting the risk in pricing and reimbursement schemes? A model of risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs," DEP - series of economic working papers 2/2011, University of Genoa, Research Doctorate in Public Economics.
    15. Nadine Schur & Salvatore Brugaletta & Angel Cequier & Andrés Iñiguez & Antonio Serra & Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo & Vicente Mainar & Gianluca Campo & Maurizio Tespili & Peter den Heijer & Armando Bethencou, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Anne Girault & Chloe Gerves-Pinquie & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Post-Print hal-01973691, HAL.
    17. Chloé Gervès-Pinquié & Anne Girault & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Benjamin Cadier & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski & Daniel Thomas & Karine Chevreul, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Free Access to Smoking Cessation Treatment in France Considering the Economic Burden of Smoking-Related Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Laura Levaggi & Rosella Levaggi, 2011. "Welfare properties of restrictions to health care based on cost effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 101-110, January.
    20. F. Tomini & F. Prinzen & A. D. I. Asselt, 2016. "A review of economic evaluation models for cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1159-1172, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0001-4. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.