Multiple Effects Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Cost-Disutility Space

Chapter 10 shows that the net benefit correspondence theorem methods, introduced and shown to have distinct advantages for multiple strategy comparisons in Chap. 8 and for multiple provider efficiency comparison consistent with maximising net benefit in Chap. 9, naturally extend such advantages to robust multiple domain comparisons under uncertainty. In Chap. 4 we highlighted that robust and generalisable methods to enable jointly considering costs and multiple effects under uncertainty are required to better inform funding decisions in complex clinical areas such as palliative care. While quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) enable integration of patient survival with morbidity, they are either unable, or struggle, to incorporate domains such as carer impacts, family distress, finalising personal and financial affairs and being in community of choice for place of palliative care and place of death. Consequently, without robust multiple domain methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, the use of conventional single outcome evaluation (QALY measures or otherwise) can misrepresent key palliative care preferences. Scarce resources and funds can easily end up supporting interventions, strategies or programmes with overall negative impacts and not supporting options that maximise palliative care outcomes from limited resources. In this chapter we show how cost-effectiveness analysis in cost-disutility (CDU) space enables robust joint consideration of costs and multiple effects under uncertainty facilitating improved societal decision making. We outline and illustrate how the net benefit correspondence theorem (NBCT) and comparison on the CDU plane introduced in Chap. 8 also facilitate robust multiple effect comparison under uncertainty with analogous multiple effect summary measures. New summary measures identify across any set of threshold values for multiple domains of effect the strategies with lowest expected net loss (ENL) or highest expected net benefit with ENL planes and the potential value of undertaking further research for the optimal strategy as the ENL contour as well as the probability of strategies having highest expected net benefit (CEA planes).

[1]  M J Al,et al.  Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. , 1994, Health economics.

[2]  Bas Groot Koerkamp,et al.  Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  F. Roila,et al.  Double-blind, dose-finding study of four intravenous doses of dexamethasone in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis. Italian Group for Antiemetic Research. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  F. López‐Soriano,et al.  Cancer Management and Research Dovepress Open Access to Scientific and Medical Research Open Access Full Text Article Dovepress Optimal Management of Cancer Anorexia–cachexia Syndrome , 2022 .

[5]  Simon Eckermann,et al.  The Value of Value of Information , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[6]  A. Abernethy,et al.  Preference for place of care and place of death in palliative care: are these different questions? , 2008, Palliative medicine.

[7]  T. Coelli,et al.  Including quality attributes in efficiency measures consistent with net benefit: creating incentives for evidence based medicine in practice. , 2013, Social science & medicine.

[8]  K. Arrow,et al.  Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions , 2014 .

[9]  D. Currow,et al.  Preliminary Development and Validation of a New End-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Assessing the Ability of Patients to Finalise Their Affairs at the End of Life , 2014, PloS one.

[10]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Simon Eckermann,et al.  Presenting Evidence and Summary Measures to Best Inform Societal Decisions When Comparing Multiple Strategies , 2011, PharmacoEconomics.

[12]  Hans Keiding,et al.  Cost-effectiveness with multiple outcomes. , 2004, Health economics.

[13]  S D Walter,et al.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  S. Dy,et al.  Evidence-Based Approaches to Other Symptoms in Advanced Cancer , 2010, Cancer journal.

[15]  Miguel A Negrín,et al.  Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis with two measures of effectiveness: the cost-effectiveness acceptability plane. , 2006, Health economics.

[16]  A H Briggs,et al.  Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. , 1997, Health economics.

[17]  P. Novotny,et al.  Randomized comparison of megestrol acetate versus dexamethasone versus fluoxymesterone for the treatment of cancer anorexia/cachexia. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  A H Briggs,et al.  Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[19]  D. Currow,et al.  What are the essential medications in pallative care? - a survey of Australian palliative care doctors. , 2006, Australian family physician.

[20]  A. Inui Cancer Anorexia‐Cachexia Syndrome: Current Issues in Research and Management , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[21]  J. Zivin Cost-effectiveness analysis with risk aversion. , 2001, Health economics.

[22]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. , 2007, Health economics.

[23]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Exploring Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[24]  J. Richardson,et al.  Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. , 1995, Social science & medicine.

[25]  S. Eckermann Hospital Performance Including Quality: Creating Economic Incentives Consistent with Evidence-Based Medicine , 2004 .

[26]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Indirect comparison: relative risk fallacies and odds solution. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[27]  D. Currow,et al.  Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space , 2015, PloS one.

[28]  N. Zethraeus,et al.  Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2000, Health economics.

[29]  Paula Ravasco,et al.  Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[30]  J. Richardson,et al.  Treatment costs and priority setting in health care: A qualitative study , 2009, Australia and New Zealand health policy.

[31]  L. Hanson,et al.  Research priorities for geriatric palliative care: goals, values, and preferences. , 2013, Journal of palliative medicine.

[32]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Health Technology Assessment in the Cost-Disutility Plane , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.