Background
Methods
Study design
Development of the Extrinsic Value Tool
-
extensive review of the literature and decisionmaking processes;
-
discussions with decisionmaking bodies and stakeholders during workshops presenting the EVIDEM framework; and
-
discussions on extrinsic components of decision during the proof-of-concept study with the 13 Canadian panelists involved (policy decisionmakers, clinicians [specialists and general practitioners], nurses, pharmacists, health economists/epidemiologists) who evaluated 10 medicines using the EVIDEM framework (submitted manuscript).
Overview | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Disease: Turner syndrome (TS)
Intervention: growth hormone (GH)
Setting: Canada |
Drug class: Polypeptide hormone
Indication: treatment of short stature in girls with Turner Syndrome
Administration: subcutaneous injection 3 to 7 days a week
Intervention duration: not established; initiate treatment as soon as growth failure demonstrated until satisfactory height reached (in Canadian RCT, 6 years of treatment starting at 10 years)
Comparator(s): No treatment
Economic burden of illness: No data available | |||
Intrinsic value components
(MCDA Value Matrix)
|
Highly synthesized information
|
Scoring of intervention
| ||
Minimum score (0)
|
Maximum score (3)
| |||
Quality of evidence
| ||||
Q1
|
Adherence to requirements of decisionmaking body
|
Not applicable for case study
|
Low adherence
|
High adherence
|
Q2 | Completeness and consistency of reporting evidence |
Epidemiology: limited statistical information; Clinical data: limited reporting of AEs; PRO: i ncomplete reporting of questionnaire dimensions; Economic evaluation: some model features unclear; Budget impact: no sensitivity analysis reported | Many gaps/inconsistent | Complete and consistent |
Q3 | Relevance and validity of evidence |
Epidemiology: study in one Canadian hospital with small sample size; Clinical data: uncertainty on final height gain, high attrition rate in key RCT; PRO: interim analysis of a subset of participants to a non blinded RCT; Economic evaluation: questionable outcome -cost per cm of final height, no adverse events costs, weak utility data; Budget impact: assuming all Canadian girls treated based on prevalence data | Low relevance/validity | High relevance/validity |
Disease impact
| ||||
D1 | Disease severity |
Female-specific genetic disorder characterized by short stature, cardiovascular defects, absence of puberty, infertility, increased risk of diabetes, defects in visuo-spatial organization and nonverbal problem-solving, and decreased life expectancy | Not severe | Very severe |
D2 | Size of population |
Prevalence: 40/100,000 female adults | Very rare disease | Common disease |
Intervention
| ||||
I1 | Clinical guidelines |
International guidelines ( no Canadian guidelines): Consider GH treatment as soon as growth failure is demonstrated and potential risks/benefits have been discussed with patient/family. Treat until satisfactory height is reached | No recommendation | Strong recommendation |
I2 | Comparative interventions limitations | There is no other therapeutic intervention indicated to treat short stature in Turner syndrome | No or very minor limitations | Major limitations |
I3 | Improvement of efficacy/effectiveness |
4 placebo controlled RCTs (2-year (toddlers) to 11-year treatments; N = 42 to 104, 1 in Canada, 3 in USA): Final height of treated patients = 147 cm to 150 cm (excluding toddlers); difference with untreated = 7 cm
Observational controlled studies (2-year to 8-year treatments, N = 26 to 123, 1 in Germany, 1 in Greece, 1 in Israel, 3 in Italy): Final height of treated patients = 148 cm to 151 cm; difference with controls = 2.1 to 6.8 cm | Lower than comparators | Major improvement |
I4 | Improvement of safety & tolerability |
Common AEs (from RCTs -frequency at least twice of placebo): Surgeries (50%), ear problems (6% to 47%), joint (13.5%) and respiratory (11%) disorders, sinusitis (18.9%)
Serious AEs (from registries, no control data): Intracranial hypertension (0.2%), slipped capital femoral epiphysis (0.2 - 03.%), scoliosis (0.7%), pancreatitis (0.1%), diabetes mellitus (0.2 to 0.3%), cardiac/aortic events (0.3%), malignancies (0.2%)
Warnings: Scoliosis, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, intracranial hypertension, ear disorders, cardiovascular disorders, autoimmune thyroid disease, insulin resistance | Lower than comparators | Major improvement |
I5 | Improvement of patient reported outcomes | Inconclusive data:
1 RCT (2-year treatment data, N = 28, Canada): higher rating on questionnaire by GH treated patients versus untreated for some domains but not for others
2 observational studies: no significant differences on SF-36 dimensions in one study (5-year treatment, N = 568, France) and significant differences in another (7-year treatment N = 29, Holland); other questionnaires, non significant differences
Convenience: Subcutaneous injection 3 days a week or daily | Worse patient reported outcomes than comparators presented | Major improvement |
I6 | Public health interest | No data on risk reduction with GH treatment | No risk reduction | Major risk reduction |
I7 | Type of medical service |
Goal of treatment: promote growth and improve psychosocial wellbeing (height gain 7 cm, patient reported outcomes data limited & inconclusive) | Minor service | Major service (e.g. cure)
|
Economics
| ||||
E1 | Budget impact on health plan |
Average annual cost of drug per patient: CAN$28,525
Annual impact for Canadian public drug plans: $11.3 million (coverage for all 396 Canadian patients) | Substantial additional expenditures | Substantial savings |
E2 | Cost-effectiveness of intervention |
Incremental cost per additional centimeter in final height: $23,630 (discounted at 5%);
Incremental cost per QALY gained $243,087 (discounted at 5%) | Not cost-effective | Highly cost-effective |
E3 | Impact on other spending |
Incremental cost per patient: $1,166 (includes training by nurse, outpatient visits & X rays over 6 years - excludes drug cost, see E1) | Substantial additional spending | Substantial savings |
Extrinsic value components
(Extrinsic Value Tool)
|
Highly synthesized information
|
Should this be considered? Would it impact positively or negatively on value of intervention?
| ||
Ethical framework*
| ||||
Goals of healthcare - utility* |
Goal of healthcare is to maintain normal functioning which may be impacted by very short stature. Goals of GH treatment are to promote growth and improve psychosocial adaptation of individual with short stature. However, psychosocial functioning of individuals with short stature is largely indistinguishable from their peers. | |||
Opportunity costs- efficiency* | Considering maximizing impact on health for a given level of resources at:
Patient level: resources allocated to GH treatment may be more beneficial if allocated to other interventions such as psychological support to cope with condition overall (not just short stature).
Society level: Significant cost/person but small population. | |||
Population priority & access - fairness* |
Prioritize worst off: applicable to patients with Turner Syndrome but maybe not to the short stature part of the disease; daily lot probably not improved with daily injections for several years, but maybe as adult with less short stature than without treatment.
Treat like cases similarly: should we treat differently short stature due to disease or due to genes?
Access to care/treatment: easier in big cities where specialists are available | |||
Other components
| ||||
System capacity and appropriate use of intervention | Optimal age for initiation of treatment has not been established. Appropriate follow up requires the intervention of skilled healthcare professionals In Canada, any physician can prescribed GH; some of the provinces that reimburse GH require it is prescribed by an endocrinologist. | |||
Stakeholder pressures | Pressure from parents, from clinicians, industry? | |||
Political/historical context | Societal pressure on short stature? | |||
Other components? |
Health technology assessment report
Panel
Value of growth hormone for Turner syndrome
Data collection and statistical analyses
Results
Health technology assessment report
Value of growth hormone for Turner syndrome
Extrinsic value components | Definition | Panelists' considerations |
---|---|---|
Ethical framework*
| ||
Goals of healthcare - utility* | Goal of healthcare is to maintain normal functioning. Such consideration is aligned with the principle of utility, which considers the act to produce the greatest good or "greatest benefits for the greatest number" |
Considered: Panelists reported that the goal of healthcare (i.e., addressing medical issues rather than social issues) should be considered, and that height is not entirely a social issue, but also a medical issue for very short patients.
Impact: Therefore for very small patients, there is a medical utility in facilitating normal functioning (reaching car pedals, kitchen cabinets etc), which would impact positively on the intrinsic value of the intervention. On the other hand, weak evidence linking improvement in minor short stature with personal gain would have a negative impact on value. |
Opportunity costs- efficiency* | Opportunity costs include resources or existing interventions that may be forgone if intervention under scrutiny is used/reimbursed. Such consideration is aligned with the principle of efficiency, which considers maximizing impact on health for a given level of resources (efficiency can be considered at the patient level and at the society level) |
Considered: Panelists indicated that this should be considered to capture the opinions of stakeholders
Impact: would have a negative impact on value, more value might be derived from psychosocial support.
Comment: Resources are often allocated to measurable outcomes (e.g., height) rather than softer outcomes such as psychosocial benefits. |
Population priority & access - fairness* | Priorities for specific groups of patients are defined by societies/decisionmakers and reflect their moral values. Such considerations are aligned with the principle of fairness, which considers treating like cases alike and different cases differently and often gives priority to those who are worst-off (theory of justice) |
Considered: Panelists indicated that this should be considered
Impact: mixed impact - negative impact related to the concept of treating like cases similarly (e.g., short stature due to other diseases) as it dilutes the importance of TS patients relative to other groups
Comment: should not discriminate against rare diseases; there should be public debate on priorities |
Other components
| ||
System capacity and appropriate use of intervention | The capacity of healthcare system to implement the intervention and to ensure its appropriate use depends on its infrastructure, organization, skills, legislation, barriers and risks of inappropriate use. Such considerations include mapping current systems and estimating whether the use of the intervention under scrutiny requires additional capacities (note: if available, economic estimate would be included in the economic component E3 of the MCDA Value Matrix) |
Considered: some panelists indicated that it should be considered while others indicated there was no potential for inappropriate use
Impact: for those who indicated it should be considered, it would have a negative impact on value
Comment: although there is no risk of misdiagnosis (genetic testing), because guidelines are not clear on age initiation, there is a risk of having all toddlers initiated on treatment, which was considered as inappropriate use. Misuse of growth hormone is possible (gaining height for no medical reason) and there are no mechanisms in place for surveillance of inappropriate use. |
Stakeholder pressures | Pressures from groups of stakeholders are often part of the context surrounding healthcare interventions. Such considerations include being aware of pressures and interests at stake and how they may affect values of decisionmakers |
Considered: some panelists indicated that it should be considered while others reported that it should not be taken into account
Impact: for those who indicated it should be considered, it would have a negative impact on value.
Comment: Lobby groups are effective at reaching and impacting decisionmakers |
Political/historical context | Political/historical context may influence the value of an intervention in consideration of specific political situations and priorities as well as habits, traditions and precedence |
Considered: Panelists indicated that this should be considered
Impact: none reported
Comment: This includes the political will to demonstrate fairness to rare disorders as well as universal access to care (guaranteed by the Canadian healthcare system) to satisfy entitlement felt by affected families. Budgetary context (i.e., recession, balanced budget or surplus) affects decisions. |
Other components | Components that are not already captured in the standard set proposed |
Weights | Scores | MCDA Estimates | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of test-retest pairs | 120* | 112†
| 8 |
Mean of test data | 4.03 | 1.33 | 1.23 |
Mean of retest data | 3.74 | 1.28 | 1.20 |
ICC (3,1) | 0.578 | 0.681 | 0.656 |
ICC (1,1) | 0.546 | 0.682 | 0.687 |
Proportion of pairs with no test-retest difference (%) | 50.8 | 65.2 | NA |
Proportion of pairs with test-retest difference of 1 point (%) | 39.2 | 28.6 | NA |
Proportion of pairs with test-retest difference of 2 points (%) | 10.0 | 6.3 | NA |