"Time Traveling Is Just Too Dangerous" but Some Methods Are Worth Revisiting: The Advantages of Expected Loss Curves Over Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves and Frontier.

BACKGROUND Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF) are the recommended graphical representations of uncertainty in a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Nevertheless, many limitations of CEACs and the CEAF have been recognized by others. Expected loss curves (ELCs) overcome these limitations by displaying the expected foregone benefits of choosing one strategy over others, the optimal strategy in expectation, and the value of potential future research all in a single figure. OBJECTIVES To revisit ELCs, illustrate their benefits using a case study, and promote their adoption by providing open-source code. METHODS We used a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of a CEA comparing 6 cerebrospinal fluid biomarker test-and-treat strategies in patients with mild cognitive impairment. We showed how to calculate ELCs for a set of decision alternatives. We used the probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the case study to illustrate the limitations of currently recommended methods for communicating uncertainty and then demonstrated how ELCs can address these issues. RESULTS ELCs combine the probability that each strategy is not cost-effective on the basis of current information and the expected foregone benefits resulting from choosing that strategy (ie, how much is lost if we recommended a strategy with a higher expected loss). ELCs display how the optimal strategy switches across willingness-to-pay thresholds and enables comparison between different strategies in terms of the expected loss. CONCLUSIONS ELCs provide a more comprehensive representation of uncertainty and overcome current limitations of CEACs and the CEAF. Communication of uncertainty in CEA would benefit from greater adoption of ELCs as a complementary method to CEACs, the CEAF, and the expected value of perfect information.

[1]  Jonathan Karnon,et al.  Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty: a Report of the Ispor-smdm Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6 Background to the Task Forcemodel-parameter-estimation-and- Uncertainty-analysis.asp). a Summary of These Articles Was Pre- Sented at a Plenary Session at the Ispor 16th Annual Intern , 2022 .

[2]  Jonathan Karnon,et al.  Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis , 2012, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  Gordon B. Hazen,et al.  A Bayesian approach to sensitivity analysis. , 1999, Health economics.

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

[5]  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.

[6]  Mark Strong,et al.  The HTA Risk Analysis Chart: Visualising the Need for and Potential Value of Managed Entry Agreements in Health Technology Assessment , 2017, PharmacoEconomics.

[7]  Gordon B. Hazen,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis and the Expected Value of Perfect Information , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  Joshua T. Cohen,et al.  The Adoption of Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves in Cost-Utility Analyses , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

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

[10]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. , 2005, Health economics.

[11]  A A Stinnett,et al.  Net Health Benefits , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2001, Health economics.

[13]  J. McCarten,et al.  Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Testing to Target Treatment to Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2017, PharmacoEconomics - Open.

[14]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves--facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. , 2004, Health economics.

[15]  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.

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

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

[18]  Fernando Alarid-Escudero,et al.  An Overview of R in Health Decision Sciences , 2017, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[19]  Elisabeth Fenwick,et al.  A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2005, The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science.

[20]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Developing a Value Framework: The Need to Reflect the Opportunity Costs of Funding Decisions. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[21]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Applied Statistical Decision Theory. , 1961 .

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

[23]  E. Heintz,et al.  Is There a European View on Health Economic Evaluations? Results from a Synopsis of Methodological Guidelines Used in the EUnetHTA Partner Countries , 2015, PharmacoEconomics.

[24]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Expected value of perfect information: an empirical example of reducing decision uncertainty by conducting additional research. , 2006, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[25]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Reflecting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2016 .

[26]  Andrew H Briggs,et al.  Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[27]  K Claxton,et al.  An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. , 1996, Health economics.