A Non-inferiority Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. (24th July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xie, Xuanqian; Falk, Lindsey; Brophy, James M.; Tu, Hong Anh; Guo, Jennifer; Gajic-Veljanoski, Olga; Sikich, Nancy; Dhalla, Irfan A.; Ng, Vivian
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 35:Number 4(2019)
• Page Start: 291
• Page End: 297
• Publication Date: 2019-07-24
• Subjects: Cost-effectiveness analysis, -- Decision-making framework, -- Effectiveness-preserved threshold, -- Non-inferiority, -- Probabilistic sensitivity analysis; Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462319000576
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Traditional decision rules have limitations when a new technology is less effective and less costly than a comparator. We propose a new probabilistic decision framework to examine non-inferiority in effectiveness and net monetary benefit (NMB) simultaneously. We illustrate this framework using the example of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment-resistant depression. Methods: We modeled the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with the new intervention (rTMS), an active control (ECT), and a placebo control, and we estimated the fraction of effectiveness preserved by the new intervention through probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). We then assessed the probability of cost-effectiveness using a traditional cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and our new decision-making framework. In our new framework, we considered the new intervention cost-effective in each simulation of the PSA if it preserved at least 75 percent of the effectiveness of the active control (thus demonstrating non-inferiority) and had a positive NMB at a given willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP). Results: rTMS was less effective (i.e., associated with fewer QALYs) and less costly than ECT. The traditional CEAC approach showed that the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were 100 percent, 39 percent, and 14 percent at WTPs of $0, $50, 000, and $100, 000 per QALY gained, respectively. In the new decision framework, the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were reduced to 23 percent, 21 percent, and 13 percent at WTPs of $0, $50, 000, and $100, 000 per QALY, respectively. Conclusions: This new framework provides a different perspective for decision making with considerations of both non-inferiority and WTP thresholds.