The impact of incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis - a case study of pharmacotherapies for moderate to severe COPD

  • K. T
  • Z. Z
  • E. D
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of using network meta-analysis (NMA) versus pair wise meta-analyses (PMA) for evidence synthesis on key outputs of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).Methods: We conducted Bayesian NMA of randomized clinical trials providing head-to-head and placebo comparisons of the effect of pharmacotherapies on the exacerbation rate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Separately, the subset of placebo-comparison trials was used in a Bayesian PMA. The pooled rate ratios (RR) were used to populate a decision-analytic model of COPD treatment to predict 10-year outcomes. Results: Efficacy estimates from the NMA and PMA were similar, but the NMA provided estimates with higher precision. This resulted in similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Probabilities of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTPs) between $25,000 and $100,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) varied considerably between the PMA- and NMA-based approaches. The largest difference in the probabilities of being cost-effective was observed at a WTP of approximately $40,000/QALY. At this threshold, with the PMA-based analysis, ICS, LAMA and placebo had a 43%, 30, and 18% probability of being the most cost-effective. By contrast, with the NMA based approach, ICS, LAMA, and placebo had a 56%, 19%, and 21% probability of being cost-effective. For larger WTP thresholds the probability of LAMA being the most cost-effective became higher than that of ICS. Under the PMA-based analyses the cross-over occurred at a WTP threshold between $60,000/QALY-$65,000/QALY, whereas under the NMA-based approach, the cross-over occurred between $85,000/QALY-$90,000/QALY. Conclusion: Use of NMAs in CEAs is feasible and, as our case study showed, can decrease uncertainty around key cost-effectiveness measures compared with the use of PMAs. The approval process of health technologies in many jurisdictions requires estimates of comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. NMAs play an increasingly important role in providing estimates of comparative efficacy. Their use in the CEAs therefore results in methodological consistency and reduced uncertainty. (copyright) 2014 Thorlund et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

K., T., Z., Z., E., D., E.J., M., & M., S. (2014). The impact of incorporating Bayesian network meta-analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis - a case study of pharmacotherapies for moderate to severe COPD. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 12(1), 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free