Value of information: interim analysis of a randomized, controlled trial of goal-directed hemodynamic treatment for aged patients

Erzsebet Bartha, Thomas Davidson, Thor-Henrik Brodtkorb, Per Carlsson, Sigridur Kalman, Erzsebet Bartha, Thomas Davidson, Thor-Henrik Brodtkorb, Per Carlsson, Sigridur Kalman

Abstract

Background: A randomized, controlled trial, intended to include 460 patients, is currently studying peroperative goal-directed hemodynamic treatment (GDHT) of aged hip-fracture patients. Interim efficacy analysis performed on the first 100 patients was statistically uncertain; thus, the trial is continuing in accordance with the trial protocol. This raised the present investigation's main question: Is it reasonable to continue to fund the trial to decrease uncertainty? To answer this question, a previously developed probabilistic cost-effectiveness model was used. That model depicts (1) a choice between routine fluid treatment and GDHT, given uncertainty of current evidence and (2) the monetary value of further data collection to decrease uncertainty. This monetary value, that is, the expected value of perfect information (EVPI), could be used to compare future research costs. Thus, the primary aim of the present investigation was to analyze EVPI of an ongoing trial with interim efficacy observed.

Methods: A previously developed probabilistic decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was employed to compare the routine fluid treatment to GDHT. Results from the interim analysis, published trials, the meta-analysis, and the registry data were used as model inputs. EVPI was predicted using (1) combined uncertainty of model inputs; (2) threshold value of society's willingness to pay for one, quality-adjusted life-year; and (3) estimated number of future patients exposed to choice between GDHT and routine fluid treatment during the expected lifetime of GDHT.

Results: If a decision to use GDHT were based on cost-effectiveness, then the decision would have a substantial degree of uncertainty. Assuming a 5-year lifetime of GDHT in clinical practice, the number of patients who would be subject to future decisions was 30,400. EVPI per patient would be €204 at a €20,000 threshold value of society's willingness to pay for one quality-adjusted life-year. Given a future population of 30,400 individuals, total EVPI would be €6.19 million.

Conclusions: If future trial costs are below EVPI, further data collection is potentially cost-effective. When applying a cost-effectiveness model, statements such as 'further research is needed' are replaced with 'further research is cost-effective and 'further funding of a trial is justified'.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01141894.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Inclusion sequence of the first 100 randomized patients in the trial:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01141894.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost-effectiveness model. A) Short-term model, the decision tree. The arrows represent the transition of the hypothetical patients towards the selected post-operative outcomes (triangles). These transitions are characterized by probability estimates (p1 to p10), costs, and health-related quality-of-life weights. For the routine fluid treatment, probability estimates were extracted from a cohort from Lund University Hospital [7]. * For goal-directed hemodynamic treatment (GDHT), the interim analysis was used. ** For mortality, published data on high-risk patients were used [8]. B) The long-term model, Markov structure. The hypothetical patients were allocated to health states characterized by health-related quality-of-life weights. During annual cycles of simulation, the patients transition in the model or stay in the same heath state. These transitions are characterized by probability estimates (p11 to p21). {AU After each cycle, quality-adjusted life-years and direct health-care costs are aggregated.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Incremental costs and effects (∆QALY) of goal-directed hemodynamic treatment (GDHT) versus routine fluid therapy. The dotted line represents one threshold value of how much society would be willing to pay for 1 additional life-year with full health for each patient in the target population.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The expected value of further information for the Swedish patient population aged >80 years with hip fracture. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) is plotted against the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year (cost-effectiveness threshold).

References

    1. Agency EM. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. .
    1. Guidance for ClinicalTrial Sponsors. .
    1. Sculpher M, Claxton K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty–when is there sufficient evidence? Value Health. 2005;8:433–446. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00033.x.
    1. Claxton K, Neumann PJ, Araki S, Weinstein MC. Bayesian value-of-information analysis. An application to a policy model of Alzheimer's disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:38–55. doi: 10.1017/S0266462301104058.
    1. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18:341–364. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00039-3.
    1. Briggs ACK, Schulper M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
    1. Hommel A, Ulander K, Bjorkelund KB, Norrman PO, Wingstrand H, Thorngren KG. Influence of optimised treatment of people with hip fracture on time to operation, length of hospital stay, reoperations and mortality within 1 year. Injury. 2008;39:1164–1174. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.01.048.
    1. Poeze M, Greve JW, Ramsay G. Meta-analysis of hemodynamic optimization: relationship to methodological quality. Crit Care. 2005;9:R771–R779. doi: 10.1186/cc3902.
    1. Foss NB, Kehlet H. Mortality analysis in hip fracture patients: implications for design of future outcome trials. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:24–29.
    1. Bartha E, Davidson T, Hommel A, Thorngren KG, Carlsson P, Kalman S. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Goal-directed Hemodynamic Treatment of Elderly Hip Fracture Patients: Before Clinical Research Starts. Anesthesiology. 2012;117:519–530. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182655eb2.
    1. Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:621–635. doi: 10.1023/A:1013171831202.
    1. Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy. 2001;55:51–69. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(00)00111-1.
    1. Tidermark J, Zethraeus N, Svensson O, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S. Femoral neck fractures in the elderly: functional outcome and quality of life according to EuroQol. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:473–481. doi: 10.1023/A:1015632114068.
    1. Riks stroke Årsrapport. ] (Swedish language.
    1. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, De Laet C, Leys M. Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:71–76. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310001194.
    1. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jonsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7:518–528. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75003.x.
    1. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:332–342. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000310.
    1. Cutler DM, Rosen AB, Vijan S. The value of medical spending in the United States, 1960–2000. N Eng J Med. 2006;355:920–927. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa054744.
    1. King JT Jr, Tsevat J, Lave JR, Roberts MS. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:667–677. doi: 10.1177/0272989X05282640.
    1. Persson U, Hjelmgren J. Health services need knowledge of how the public values health. Lakartidningen. 2003;100:3436–3437.
    1. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, Briggs A, Akehurst R, Buxton M, Brazier J, O'Hagan T. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339–347. doi: 10.1002/hec.985.
    1. Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24:1055–1068. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00003.
    1. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE) Lancet. 2002;360:711–715. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09832-X.
    1. Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–103.
    1. Ginnelly L, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Golder S. Using value of information analysis to inform publicly funded research priorities. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:37–46. doi: 10.2165/00148365-200504010-00006.
    1. Tharmanathan P, Calvert M, Hampton J, Freemantle N. The use of interim data and Data Monitoring Committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: frequency, implications and potential sources of bias. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-12.
    1. Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D, Edwards S, Stevens A. Monitoring clinical trials–interim data should be publicly available. BMJ. 2001;323:441–442. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7310.441.
    1. ICH Topic E 9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. .

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel