Acknowledging Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation

Background and ObjectivePatient heterogeneity is the part of variability that can be explained by certain patient characteristics (e.g. age, disease stage). Population reimbursement decisions that acknowledge patient heterogeneity could potentially save money and increase population health. To date, however, economic evaluations pay only limited attention to patient heterogeneity. The objective of the present paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge regarding patient heterogeneity within economic evaluation of healthcare programmes.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify methodological papers on the topic of patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation. Data were obtained using a keyword search of the PubMed database and manual searches. Handbooks were also included. Relevant data were extracted regarding potential sources of patient heterogeneity, in which of the input parameters of an economic evaluation these occur, methods to acknowledge patient heterogeneity and specific concerns associated with this acknowledgement.ResultsA total of 20 articles and five handbooks were included. The relevant sources of patient heterogeneity (demographics, preferences and clinical characteristics) and the input parameters where they occurred (baseline risk, treatment effect, health state utility and resource utilization) were combined in a framework. Methods were derived for the design, analysis and presentation phases of an economic evaluation. Concerns related mainly to the danger of false-positive results and equity issues.ConclusionBy systematically reviewing current knowledge regarding patient heterogeneity within economic evaluations of healthcare programmes, we provide guidance for future economic evaluations. Guidance is provided on which sources of patient heterogeneity to consider, how to acknowledge them in economic evaluation and potential concerns. The improved acknowledgement of patient heterogeneity in future economic evaluations may well improve the efficiency of healthcare.

[1]  Anirban Basu,et al.  Value of Information on Preference Heterogeneity and Individualized Care , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  Martin J Buxton,et al.  Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. , 2003, Health economics.

[3]  Anirban Basu,et al.  A CTSA Agenda to Advance Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research , 2011, Clinical and translational science.

[4]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[5]  R. Bast,et al.  Individualized care for patients with cancer - a work in progress. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials , 2009, Trials.

[7]  Mark Sculpher,et al.  Subgroups and Heterogeneity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[8]  M. Mcgrath Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1998 .

[9]  S. Pocock,et al.  Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problems , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  M. Bala,et al.  Pharmacogenomics and the Evolution of Healthcare , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[11]  A. L. Caze Does pharmacogenomics provide an ethical challenge to the utilisation of cost-effectiveness analysis by public health systems? , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[12]  P. Dolan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? , 2004, The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care.

[13]  G H Guyatt,et al.  A Consumer's Guide to Subgroup Analyses , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  Nick Freemantle,et al.  Interpreting the results of secondary end points and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: should we lock the crazy aunt in the attic? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost‐effectiveness modelling , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  T. Peters,et al.  Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[17]  Verena Tiefenbeck,et al.  For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign , 2013 .

[18]  S. Chick,et al.  A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. , 2006, Health economics.

[19]  Grazyna Adamiak,et al.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed , 2006 .

[20]  D. Marshall,et al.  Design and Analysis Issues for Economic Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials , 2009, Medical care.

[21]  F. Pang,et al.  Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[22]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Authors' reply , 2002 .

[23]  C. Dewa,et al.  Lessons from Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Mental Health Interventions , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[24]  J. Singh International society for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research , 2006 .

[25]  Daniel Polsky,et al.  Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials , 2007 .

[26]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. , 2004, Health economics.

[27]  P. Dolan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics , 2004, The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC.

[28]  Janneke Grutters,et al.  The role of the expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[29]  A. Chant,et al.  Can overall results of clinical trials be applied to all patients? , 1995, Lancet.

[30]  P. Rothwell Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation , 2005, The Lancet.

[31]  Charles Normand,et al.  Optimisation versus certainty: understanding the issue of heterogeneity in economic evaluation. , 2004, Social science & medicine.

[32]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation , 2006 .

[33]  M. Sculpher Reflecting heterogeneity in patient benefits: the role of subgroup analysis with comparative effectiveness. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[34]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Recognizing diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2001, Health economics.

[35]  A. Briggs,et al.  Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2002, Health economics.

[36]  S. Assmann,et al.  Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials , 2000, The Lancet.

[37]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Access with Evidence Development in the UK , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[38]  Modelling approaches: the case of schizophrenia. , 2008, PharmacoEconomics.

[39]  J Dowie Towards the equitably efficient and transparently decidable use of public funds in the deep blue millennium. , 1998, Health economics.

[40]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in people at different levels of vascular disease risk: economic analysis of a randomised trial in 20 536 individuals , 2005, The Lancet.

[41]  On pharmacogenomics and cost-effectiveness analysis at the individual level , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[42]  S. Dixon,et al.  The Role of Patient Preferences in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[43]  M. Relling,et al.  Moving towards individualized medicine with pharmacogenomics , 2004, Nature.

[44]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study , 2006, Heart.

[45]  Simon G Thompson,et al.  Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. , 2005, Health economics.

[46]  Gregory S Zaric,et al.  The Impact of Ignoring Population Heterogeneity when Markov Models are Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 2003, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[47]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Shared treatment decision making in a collectively funded health care system: possible conflicts and some potential solutions. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[48]  M. Drummond,et al.  What do international pharmacoeconomic guidelines say about economic data transferability? , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[49]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[50]  David Parkin,et al.  Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni. , 2002, Health economics.