Meeting round-up: ISPOR Europe 2019

For many health economists, November is ISPOR Europe month, and this year was no exception! We gathered in the fantastic Bella Center in Copenhagen to debate, listen and breathe health economics and outcomes research from the 2nd to the 6th November. Missed it? Would like a recap? Stay tuned for the #ISPOREurope 2019 round-up!

Bella Center

My ISPOR week started with the fascinating course ‘Tools for reproducible real-world data analysis’ by Blythe Adamson and Rachael Sorg. My key take-home messages? Use an interface like R-markdown to produce a document with code and results automatically. Use a version control platform like Phabricator to make code review easy. Write a detailed protocol, write the code to follow the protocol, and then check the code side by side with the protocol.

Monday started with the impressive workshop on translating oncology clinical trial endpoints to real-world data (RWD) for decision making.

Keith Abrams set the scene. Electronic health records (EHRs) may be used to derive the overall survival (OS) benefit given the observed benefit on progression-free survival (PFS). Sylwia Bujkiewicz showed an example where a bivariate meta-analysis of RCTs was used to estimate the surrogate relationship between PFS and OS (paper here). Jessica Davies discussed some of the challenges, such as the lack of data on exposure to treatments in a way that matches the data recorded in trials. Federico Felizzi presented a method to determine the optimal treatment duration of a cancer drug (see here for the code).

Next up, the Women in HEOR session! Women in HEOR is an ISPOR initiative that aims to support the growth, development, and contribution of women. It included various initiatives at ISPOR Europe, such as dinners, receptions and, of course, this session.

Shelby Reed introduced, and Olivia Wu presented on the overwhelming evidence on the benefits of diversity and on how to foster it in our work environment. Nancy Berg presented on ISPOR’s commitment to diversity and equality. We then heard from Sabina Hutchison about how to network in a conference environment, how to develop a personal brand and present our pitch. Have a look at my twitter thread for the tips. For more information on the Women in HEOR activities at ISPOR Europe, search #WomenInHEOR on twitter. Loads of cool information!

My Monday afternoon started with the provocatively titled ‘Time for change? Has time come for the pharma industry to accept modest prices?’. Have a look here for my live twitter thread. Kate Dion started by noting that the pressure is on for the pharmaceutical industry to reduce drug prices. Sarah Garner argued that lower prices lead to more patients being able to access the drug, which in turn increases the company’s income. Michael Schröter argued that innovative products should have a premium price, such as with Hemlibra. Lastly, Jens Grueger supported the implementation of value-based price, given the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Keeping with the drug pricing theme, my next session was on indication-based pricing. Mireia Jofre Bonet tackled the question of whether a single price is stifling innovation. Adrian Towse was supportive of indication-based pricing because it allows for the price to depend on the value of each indication and expand access to the full licensed population. Andrew Briggs argued against indication-based pricing for three reasons. First, it would give companies the maximum value-based price across all indications. Second, it would lead to greater drug expenditure, leading to greater opportunity costs. Third, it would be difficult to enforce, given that it would require cooperation of all payers. Francis Arickx explained the pricing system in Belgium. Remarkably, prices can be renegotiated over time depending on new entrants to market and new evidence. Another excellent session at ISPOR Europe!

My final session on Monday was about the timely and important topic of approaches for OS extrapolation. Elisabeth Fenwick introduced the session by noting that innovations in oncology have given rise to different patterns of survival, with implications for extrapolation. Sven Klijn presented on the various available methods for survival extrapolation. John Whalen focused on mixture cure models for cost-effectiveness analysis. Steve Palmer argued that, although new methods, such as mixture cure models, may provide additional insight, the approach should be justified, evidence-based and alternatives explored. In sum, there is no single optimal method.

On Tuesday, my first session was the impressive workshop on estimating cost-effectiveness thresholds based on the opportunity cost (twitter thread). Nancy Devlin set the scene by explaining the importance of getting the cost-effectiveness threshold right. James Lomas explained how to estimate the opportunity cost to the health care system following the seminal work by Karl Claxton et al and also touching on some of James’s recent work. Martin Henriksson noted that, by itself, the opportunity cost is not sufficient to define the threshold if we wish to consider solidarity and need alongside cost-effectiveness. The advantage of knowing the opportunity cost is that we can make informed trade-offs between health maximisation and other elements of value. Danny Palnoch finished the panel by explaining the challenges when deciding what to pay for a new treatment.

Clearly there is a tension between the price that pharmaceutical companies feel is reasonable, the opportunity cost to the health care service, and the desire by stakeholders to use the drug. I feel this in every session of the NICE appraisal committee!

My next session was the compelling panel on the use of RWD to revisit the HTA decision (twitter thread). Craig Brooks-Rooney noted that, as regulators increasingly license technologies based on weaker evidence, HTA agencies are under pressure to adapt their methods to the available evidence. Adrian Towse proposed a conceptual framework to use RWD to revisit decisions based on value of information analysis. Jeanette Kusel went through examples where RWD has been used to inform NICE decisions, such as brentuximab vendotin. Anna Halliday discussed the many practical challenges to implement RWD collection to inform re-appraisals. Anna finished with the caution against prolonging negotiations and appraisals, which could lead to delays to patient access.

My Wednesday started with the stimulating panel on drugs with tumour agnostic indications. Clarissa Higuchi Zerbini introduced the panel and proposed some questions to be addressed. Rosa Giuliani contributed with the clinical perspective. Jacoline Bouvy discussed the challenges faced by NICE and ways forward in appraising tumour-agnostic drugs. Marc van den Bulcke finished the panel with an overview of how next generation sequencing has been implemented in Belgium.

My last session was the brilliant workshop on HTA methods for antibiotics.

Mark Sculpher introduced the topic. Antibiotic resistance is a major challenge for humanity, but the development of new antibiotics is declining. Beth Woods presented a new framework for HTA of antibiotics. The goal is to reflect the full value of antibiotics whilst accounting for the opportunity cost and uncertainties in the evidence (see this report for more details). Angela Blake offered the industry perspective. She argued that revenues should be delinked to volume, to be holistic in the value assessment, and to be mindful of the incentives faced by drug companies. Nick Crabb finished by introducing a new project, by NICE and NHS England, on the feasibility of innovative value assessments for antibiotics.

And this is the end of the absolutely outstanding ISPOR Europe 2019! If you’re eager for more, have a look at the video below with my conference highlights!

Rachel Houten’s journal round-up for 11th November 2019

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

A comparison of national guidelines for network meta-analysis. Value in Health [PubMed] Published October 2019

The evolving treatment landscape results in a greater dependence on indirect treatment comparisons to generate estimates of clinical effectiveness, where the current practice has not been compared to the proposed new intervention in a head-to-head trial. This paper is a review of the guidelines of reimbursement bodies for conducting network meta-analyses. Reassuringly, the authors find that it is possible to meet the needs of multiple agencies with one analysis.

The authors assign three categories to the criteria; “assessment and analysis to test assumptions required for a network meta-analysis, presentation and reporting of results, and justification of modelling choices”, with heterogeneity of the included studies highlighted as one of the key elements to be sure to include if prioritisation of the criteria is necessary. I think this is a simple way of thinking about what needs to be presented but the ‘justification’ category, in my experience, is often given less weight than the other two.

This paper is a useful resource for companies submitting to multiple HTA agencies with the requirements of each national body displayed in tables that are easy to navigate. It meets a practical need but doesn’t really go far enough for me. They do signpost to the PRISMA criteria, but I think it would have been really good to think about the purpose of the submission guidelines; to encourage a logical and coherent summary of the approaches taken so the evidence can be evaluated by decision-makers.

Variation in responsiveness to warranted behaviour change among NHS clinicians: novel implementation of change detection methods in longitudinal prescribing data. BMJ [PubMed] Published 2nd October 2019

I really like this paper. Such a lot of work, from all sectors, is devoted to the production of relevant and timely evidence to inform practice, but if the guidance does not become embedded into the real world then its usefulness is limited.

The authors have managed to utilize a HUGE amount of data to identify the real reaction to two pieces of guidance recommending a change in practice in England. The authors used “trend indicator saturation”, which I’m not ashamed to admit I knew nothing about beforehand, but it is explained nicely. Their thoughtful use of the information available to them results in three indicators of response (in this case the deprescribing of two drugs) around when the change occurs, how quickly it occurs, and how much change occurs.

The authors discover variation in response to the recommendations but suggest an application of their methods could be used to generate feedback to clinicians and therefore drive further response. As some primary care practices took a while to embed the guidance change into their prescribing, the paper raises interesting questions as to where the barriers to the adoption of guidance have occurred.

What is next for patient preferences in health technology assessment? A systematic review of the challenges. Value in Health Published November 2019

It may be that patient preferences have a role to play in the uptake of guideline recommendations, as proposed by the authors of my final paper this week. This systematic review, of the literature around embedding patient preferences into HTA decision-making, groups the discussion in the academic literature into five broad areas; conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical. The authors state that their purpose was not to formulate their own views, merely to present the available literature, but they do a good job of indicating where to find more opinionated literature on this topic.

Methodological issues were the biggest group, with aspects such as the sample selection, internal and external validity of the preferences generated, and the generalisability of the preferences collected from a sample to the entire population. However, in general, the number of topics covered in the literature is vast and varied.

It’s a great summary of the challenges that are faced, and a ranking based on frequency of topic being mentioned in the literature drives the authors proposed next steps. They recommend further research into the incorporation of preferences within or beyond the QALY and the use of multiple-criteria decision analysis as a method of integrating patient preferences into decision-making. I support the need for “a scientifically and valid manner” to integrate patient preferences into HTA decision-making but wonder if we can first learn of what works well and hasn’t worked so well from the attempts of HTA agencies thus far.

Credits

David Mott’s journal round-up for 16th September 2019

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Opening the ‘black box’: an overview of methods to investigate the decision‑making process in choice‑based surveys. The Patient [PubMed] Published 5th September 2019

Choice-based surveys using methods such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling (BWS) exercises are increasingly being used in health to understand people’s preferences. A lot of time and energy is spent on analysing the data that come out from these surveys but increasingly there is an interest in better understanding respondents’ decision-making processes. Whilst many will be aware of ‘think aloud’ interviews (often used for piloting), other methods may be less familiar as they’re not applied frequently in health. That’s where this fascinating paper by Dan Rigby and colleagues comes in. It provides an overview of five different methods of what they call ‘pre-choice process analysis’ of decision-making, describing the application, state of knowledge, and future research opportunities.

Eye-tracking has been used in health recently. It’s intuitive and provides an insight into where the participants’ focus is (or isn’t). The authors explained that one of the ways it has been used is to explore attribute non-attendance (ANA), which essentially occurs when people are ignoring attributes either because they’re irrelevant to them, or simply because it makes the task easier. However, surprisingly, it has been suggested that ‘visual ANA’ (not looking at the attribute) doesn’t always align with ‘stated ANA’ (participants stating that they ignored the attribute) – which raises some interesting questions!

However, the real highlight for me was the overview of the use of brain imaging techniques to explore choices being made in DCEs. One study highlighted by the authors – which was a DCE about eggs and is now at least #2 on my list of the bizarre preference study topics after this oddly specific one on Iberian ham – predicted choices from an initial ‘passive viewing’ using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). They found that incorporating changes in blood flow (prompted by changes in attribute levels during ‘passive viewing’) into a random utility model accounted for a lot of the variation in willingness to pay for eggs – pretty amazing stuff.

Whilst I’ve highlighted the more unusual methods here, after reading this overview I have to admit that I’m an even bigger advocate for the ‘think aloud’ technique now. Although it may have some limitations, the amount of insight offered combined with its practicality is hard to beat. Though maybe I’m biased because I know that I won’t get my hands on any eye-tracking or brain imaging devices any time soon. In any case, I highly recommend that any researchers conducting preference studies give this paper a read as it’s really well written and will surely be of interest.

Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium. Social Science & Medicine [PubMed] Published 21st June 2019

The end of life (EOL) policy introduced by NICE in 2009 [PDF] has proven controversial. The policy allows treatments that are not cost-effective within the usual range to be considered for approval, provided that certain criteria are met. Specifically, that the treatment targets patients with a short life expectancy (≤24 months), offers a life extension (of ≥3 months) and is for a ‘small patient population’. One of the biggest issues with this policy is that it is unclear whether the general population actually supports the idea of valuing health gains (specifically life extension) at EOL more than other health gains.

Numerous academic studies, usually involving some form of stated preference exercise, have been conducted to test whether the public might support this EOL premium. A recent review by Koonal Shah and colleagues summarised the existing published studies (up to October 2017), highlighting that evidence is extremely mixed. This recently published Danish study, by Lise Desireé Hansen and Trine Kjær, adds to this literature. The authors conducted an incredibly thorough stated preference exercise to test whether quality of life (QOL) gains and life extension (LE) at EOL are valued differently from other similarly sized health gains. Not only that, but the study also explored the effect of perspective on results (social vs individual), the effect of age (18-35 vs. 65+), and impact of initial severity (25% vs. 40% initial QOL) on results.

Overall, they did not find evidence of support for an EOL premium for QOL gains or for LEs (regardless of perspective) but their results do suggest that QOL gains are preferred over LE. In some scenarios, there was slightly more support for EOL in the social perspective variant, relative to the individual perspective – which seems quite intuitive. Both age and initial severity had an impact on results, with respondents preferring to treat the young and those with worse QOL at baseline. One of the most interesting results for me was within their subgroup analyses, which suggested that women and those with a relation to a terminally ill patient had a significantly positive preference for EOL – but only in the social perspective scenarios.

This is a really well-designed study, which covers a lot of different concepts. This probably doesn’t end the debate on NICE’s use of the EOL criteria – not least because the study wasn’t conducted in England and Wales – but it contributes a lot. I’d consider it a must-read for anyone interested in this area.

How should we capture health state utility in dementia? Comparisons of DEMQOL-Proxy-U and of self- and proxy-completed EQ-5D-5L. Value in Health Published 26th August 2019

Capturing quality of life (QOL) in dementia and obtaining health state utilities is incredibly challenging; which is something that I’ve started to really appreciate recently upon getting involved in a EuroQol-funded ‘bolt-ons’ project. The EQ-5D is not always able to detect meaningful changes in cognitive function and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs), such as the DEMQOL, may be preferred as a result. However, this isn’t the only challenge because in many cases patients are not in a position to complete the surveys themselves. This means that proxy-reporting is often required, which could be done by either a professional (formal) carer, or a friend or family member (informal carer). Researchers that want to use a PBM in this population therefore have a lot to consider.

This paper compares the performance of the EQ-5D-5L and the DEMQOL-Proxy when completed by care home residents (EQ-5D-5L only), formal carers and informal carers. The impressive dataset that the authors use contains 1,004 care home residents, across up to three waves, and includes a battery of different cognitive and QOL measures. The overall objective was to compare the performance of the EQ-5D-5L and DEMQOL-Proxy, across the three respondent groups, based on 1) construct validity, 2) criterion validity, and 3) responsiveness.

The authors found that self-reported EQ-5D-5L scores were larger and less responsive to changes in the cognitive measures, but better at capturing residents’ self-reported QOL (based on a non-PBM) relative to proxy-reported scores. It is unclear whether this is a case of adaptation as seen in many other patient groups, or if the residents’ cognitive impairments prevent them from reliably assessing their current status. The proxy-reported EQ-5D-5L scores were generally more responsive to changes in the cognitive measures relative to the DEMQOL-Proxy (irrespective of which type of proxy), which the authors note is probably due to the fact that the DEMQOL-Proxy focuses more on the emotional impact of dementia rather than functional impairment.

Overall, this is a really interesting paper, which highlights the challenges well and illustrates that there is value in collecting these data from both patients and proxies. In terms of the PBM comparison, whilst the authors do not explicitly state it, it does seem that the EQ-5D-5L may have a slight upper hand due to its responsiveness, as well as for pragmatic reasons (the DEMQOL-Proxy has >30 questions). Perhaps a cognition ‘bolt-on’ to the EQ-5D-5L might help to improve the situation in future?

Credits