Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
PharmacoEconomics
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 1/2006

01.01.2006 | Leading Article

Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis

verfasst von: A. E. Ades, Mark Sculpher, Alex Sutton, Keith Abrams, Nicola Cooper, Nicky Welton, Guobing Lu

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 1/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Recently, health systems internationally have begun to use cost-effectiveness research as formal inputs into decisions about which interventions and programmes should be funded from collective resources. This process has raised some important methodological questions for this area of research. This paper considers one set of issues related to the synthesis of effectiveness evidence for use in decision-analytic cost-effectiveness (CE) models, namely the need for the synthesis of all sources of available evidence, although these may not ‘fit neatly’ into a CE model.
Commonly encountered problems include the absence of head-to-head trial evidence comparing all options under comparison, the presence of multiple endpoints from trials and different follow-up periods. Full evidence synthesis for CE analysis also needs to consider treatment effects between patient subpopulations and the use of nonrandomised evidence.
Bayesian statistical methods represent a valuable set of analytical tools to utilise indirect evidence and can make a powerful contribution to the decision-analytic approach to CE analysis. This paper provides a worked example and a general overview of these methods with particular emphasis on their use in economic evaluation.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225–50PubMedCrossRef
2.
Sullivan S, Lyles A, Luce B, et al. AMCP guidance for submission of clinical and economic evaluation data to support formulary listing in US health plans and pharmacy benefits management organisations. J Manag Care Pharm 2001; 7: 272–82
3.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004
4.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to technology appraisal process. London: NICE, 2004
5.
Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7: 561–73PubMedCrossRef
6.
Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711–5PubMedCrossRef
7.
Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, et al. The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (11): 1–91
8.
Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, et al. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making 2002; 22: 290–308PubMed
9.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester: Wiley, 2004
10.
Fryback DG, Chinnis JO, Ulviva JW. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis: an example using the GUSTO trial. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 83–97PubMedCrossRef
11.
O’Hagan A, Luce B. A primer on Bayesian statistics in health economics and outcomes research. Bethesda (MD): Medtap International, 2003
12.
13.
Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res 2001; 10: 277–303PubMedCrossRef
14.
Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Decision analytical economic modelling within a Bayesian framework: application to prophylactic antibiotics use for caesarean section. Stat Methods Med Res 2002; 11: 491–512PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, et al. Comprehensive decision analytical modelling in economic evaluation: a Bayesian approach. Health Econ 2004; 13: 203–26PubMedCrossRef
16.
Parmigiani G. Modeling in medical decision making: a Bayesian approach. Chichester: Wiley, 2002
17.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS user manual: version 1.4. Cambridge (UK): MRC Biostatistics Unit, 2001
18.
Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making 1985; 5: 157–77PubMedCrossRef
19.
Critchfield GC, Willard KE, Connelly DP. Probabilistic analysis of decision trees using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making 1986; 6: 85–92PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bailey KR. Inter-study differences: how should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results. Stat Med 1987; 6: 351–60PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, et al. A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 86–94PubMedCrossRef
22.
Shadish WR, Haddock CK. Combining estimates of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994: 261–81
23.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88PubMedCrossRef
24.
Prevost TC, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Hierarchical models in generalised synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3359–76PubMedCrossRef
25.
Mandelblatt JS, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 135–75
26.
van Valkengoed IGM, Morré SA, van den Brute AJC, et al. Over-estimation of complication rates of chlamydia trachomatis screening programmes: implications for cost-effectiveness analyses. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33: 416–25PubMedCrossRef
27.
Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. Analysis of breast cancer screening: seven controlled studies. In: Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Shachter R, editors. Meta-analysis by the confidence profile method. Boston: Academic Press, 1982: 223–9
28.
Hasselblad V, McCrory DC. Meta-analytic tools for medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 81–96PubMedCrossRef
29.
Ades AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter evidence synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med 2003; 22: 2995–3016PubMedCrossRef
30.
Ades AE, Cliffe S. Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation of a multi-parameter decision model: consistency of evidence and the accurate assessment of uncertainty. Med Decis Making 2002; 22: 359–71PubMed
31.
Bucher H, Hengstler P, Schindler C, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2000; 321: 73–7PubMedCrossRef
32.
Yazdanpanah Y, Sissoko D, Egger M, et al. Clinical efficacy of antiretroviral combination therapy based on protease inhibitors or non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors: indirect comparison of controlled trials. BMJ 2004; 328: 249–53PubMedCrossRef
33.
Song F, Altman DG, Glenny A-M, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 326: 472–5PubMedCrossRef
34.
Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative metaanalysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002; 324: 71–86CrossRef
35.
Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995
36.
37.
Wilby J, Kainth K, Hawkins N, et al. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2003
38.
Bridle C, Palmer S, Bagnall A-M, et al. A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and costeffectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder. Health Technol Assess 2004; 18 (19): 1–187
39.
Higgins JPT, Whitehead J. Borrowing strength from external trials in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1996; 15: 2733–49PubMedCrossRef
40.
Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, Shachter R. Meta-analysis by the confidence profile method. London: Academic Press, 1992
41.
Stinnett A, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: S68–80PubMedCrossRef
42.
Palmer S, Sculpher M, Philips Z, et al. Management of non-STelevation acute coronary syndromes: how cost-effective are glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in the UK National Health Service? Int J Cardiol 2005 Apr 20; 100 (2): 229–40PubMedCrossRef
43.
Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, et al. Populating economic decision models using meta-analysis of heterogeneously reported studies augmented with expert beliefs. Developing Economic Evaluation Methods (DEEM) workshop; 2003 Sep 4-5; Bristol
44.
Berkey CS, Anderson JJ, Hoaglin DC. Multiple-outcome metaanalysis of clinical trials. Stat Med 1996; 15: 537–57PubMedCrossRef
45.
Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Antczak-Bouckoms A, et al. Metaanalysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2537–50PubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
Prentice RK. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1998; 8: 431–40CrossRef
48.
Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD, et al. Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA 1999; 282: 786–90PubMedCrossRef
49.
Pahor M, Psaty BM, Alderman MH et al. Health outcomes associated with calcium antagonists compared with other firstline hypertensive therapies: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2000; 356: 1949–54PubMedCrossRef
50.
Fleming TR, de Mets DL. Surrogate end-points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 605–13PubMed
51.
Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med 1997; 16: 1965–82PubMedCrossRef
52.
Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, van Houwelingen HC, et al. On metaanalytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 231–46PubMedCrossRef
53.
Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Alonso A, et al. A perspective on surrogate endpoints in controlled clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2004; 13: 177–206PubMed
54.
Byar DP. Assessing apparent treatment-covariate interactions in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1985; 4: 255–63PubMedCrossRef
55.
Manca A, Rice N, Sculpher MJ, et al. Assessing generalisability by location in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models. Health Econ 2005 May; 14 (5): 471–85PubMedCrossRef
56.
57.
Dixon DO, Simon R. Bayesian subset analysis in a colorectal cancer clinical trial. Stat Med 1992; 11: 13–22PubMed
58.
Sharp SJ, Thompson SG. Analysing the relationship between treatment effect and underlying risk in meta-analysis: comparison and development of approaches. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3251–74PubMedCrossRef
59.
Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 2004; 363: 1728–31PubMedCrossRef
60.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD report 4. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2nd ed. York: CRD, University of York, 2001
61.
Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. JAMA 2000; 342: 1887–92
62.
Benson BA, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1878–86PubMedCrossRef
63.
Britton A, McKee M, Black N, et al. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2 (13): i–iv, 1-124PubMed
64.
Reeves BC, MacLehose RR, Harvey IM, et al. Comparisons of effect size estimates derived from randomised and nonrandomised studies. In: Black N, Brazier J, Fitzpatrick R, et al., editors. Health services research methods: a guide to best practice. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1998: 73–85
65.
DuMouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with an application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System (with discussion). Am Stat 1999; 53: 177–202
66.
Sutton A, Abrams K, Jones D. Generalised synthesis of evidence and the threat of publication bias: the example of electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (EFM). J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 1013–24PubMedCrossRef
67.
Droitcour F, Silberman G, Chelimsky E. Cross design synthesis: a new form of meta-analysis for combining the results from randomised clinical trials and medical-practice databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 440–9PubMedCrossRef
68.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Stat Med 2003; 22: 3687–709PubMedCrossRef
69.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408–12PubMedCrossRef
70.
Li Z, Begg CB. Random effects models for combining results from controlled and uncontrolled studies in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 1994; 89: 1523–7CrossRef
71.
Carlin B. Analysis of local decisions using hierarchical modeling, applied to home radon measurement and remediation: comment. Stat Sci 1999; 14: 328–30
72.
Samsa GP, Renter RA, Parmigiani G, et al. Performing costeffectiveness analysis by integrating randomised trial data with a comprehensive decision model: application to treatment of ischemic stroke. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 259–71PubMedCrossRef
73.
Parmigiani G, Ancukiewicz M, Matchar D. Decision models in clinical recommendations development: the stroke prevention policy model. In: Berry DA, Stangl DK, editors. Bayesian biostatistics. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1996: 207–33
74.
Craig BA, Fryback DG, Klein R, et al. A Bayesian approach to modelling the natural history of a chronic condition from observations with intervention. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1355–71PubMedCrossRef
75.
Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004 Oct 30; 23 (20): 3105–24PubMedCrossRef
76.
Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1996
77.
Welton NJ, Ades AE. A model of toxoplasmosis incidence in the UK: evidence synthesis and consistency of evidence. Appl Stat 2005; 54: 385–404
78.
Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, et al. How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Stat Med 2005 Aug 15; 24 (15): 2401–28PubMedCrossRef
79.
Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Chichester: Wiley, 2002CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis
verfasst von
A. E. Ades
Mark Sculpher
Alex Sutton
Keith Abrams
Nicola Cooper
Nicky Welton
Guobing Lu
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2006
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 1/2006
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624010-00001

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2006

PharmacoEconomics 1/2006 Zur Ausgabe

Commentary

Too important to ignore

Original Research Article

Evaluation of the cost effectiveness of sirolimus versus tacrolimus for immunosuppression following renal transplantation in the UK

Original Research Article

Interstitial cystitis

Original Research Article

Incorporating carer effects into economic evaluation

Review Article

Costs of irritable bowel syndrome in the UK and US

Original Research Article

Cost effectiveness of bemiparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin and oral anticoagulants in the acute and long-term treatment of deep vein thrombosis