Performing Cost-Effectiveness Analyses to Support Policy Making
Key Lessons From the Assessment of Aducanumab
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to describe the process and the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians interested in joining or leading aspects of this branch of evidence-based research. Cost-effectiveness is a useful tool for policymakers and is considered a starting point for discussions of fair pricing. Clinicians are important members of teams conducting cost-effectiveness analyses, particularly as it relates to integrating their clinical expertise into the decisions around the design and conduct of the analysis. Their input is essential in assuring that models adequately reflect clinical practice and are informed by expert judgments of how existing data can best be interpreted to build a comprehensive analysis of the clinical and economic outcomes of different treatment options. We illustrate specific contributions that clinicians are well positioned to make in these teams using a recent cost-effectiveness analysis of aducanumab that was conducted to support fair drug pricing. While discussing these contributions, we explain key components of a cost-effectiveness analysis, such as time horizon, health states, and perspective, to support understanding of the methods of cost-effectiveness by the clinical researchers and to promote a common dialogue among these multidisciplinary teams.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Kirzinger A, Kearney A, Stokes M, Brodie M. KFF Health Tracking Poll: May 2021: Prescription Drug Prices Top Public's Health Care Priorities. Published 2021. Accessed August 8, 2021. kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-may-2021/
2.
Whittington MD, Campbell JD, Rind D, et al. Cost-effectiveness and value-based pricing of aducanumab for patients with early Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2022;98(9):XX-XXX.
3.
Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices: overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):667-677.
4.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS): explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231-250.
5.
Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093-1103.
6.
Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices: Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9-17.
7.
Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1766.
8.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease: Revised Background and Scope. Published 2020. Accessed August 10, 2021. icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ICER_Alzheimers_Revised_Scoping_Document_118120.pdf.
9.
Lin GAWM, Synnott PG, McKenna A, Campbell J, Pearson SDRD. Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease: Effectiveness and Value. Final Evidence Report and Meeting Summary. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review; 2021.
10.
Food and Drug Administration. Highlights of Prescribing Information: Aduhelm (aducanumab-avwa) injection, for intravenous use; 2021. Accessed June 7, 2021. biogencdn.com/us/aduhelm-pi.pdf
11.
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT. QALYs in 2018-advantages and concerns. JAMA. 2018;319(24):2473-2474.
12.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Cost-effectiveness, the QALY, and the evLYG. Accessed August 8, 2021. icer.org/our-approach/methods-process/cost-effectiveness-the-qaly-and-the-evlyg/.
13.
Neumann PJ, Hermann RC, Kuntz KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease. Neurology. 1999;52(6):1138-1145.
14.
Green C, Handels R, Gustavsson A, et al. Assessing cost-effectiveness of early intervention in Alzheimer's disease: an open-source modeling framework. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;15(10):1309-1321.
15.
Nguyen KH, Comans TA, Green C. Where are we at with model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia? A systematic review and quality assessment. Int Psychogeriatrics. 2018;30(11):1593-1605.
16.
Potashman M, Buessing M, Levitchi Benea M, et al. Estimating progression rates across the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease for amyloid positive individuals using National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center data. Neurol Ther. 2021:10(2):941-953.
17.
Pennington B, Wong R. Modelling Carer Health-Related Quality of Life in Nice Technology Appraisals and Highly Specialised Technologies. Published 2019. Accessed August 10, 2021. nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-04-03-NICE-carer-HRQL-v-2-0-clean.pdf.
18.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Value assessment framework. Published 2020. Accessed August 12, 2021. icer.org/our-approach/methods-process/value-assessment-framework/.
19.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease: Effectiveness and Value: Modeling Analysis Plan. Published 2021. Accessed August 10, 2021. osf.io/6wchv/.
20.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methodology. Published 2021. Updated August 2021. Accessed September 10, 2021. ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/technical/methodology/index.html.
21.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. ICER's Reference Case for Economic Evaluations: Principles and Rationale. Published 2020. Accessed August 10, 2021. icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ICER_Reference_Case_013120.pdf.
22.
Haeberlein SB, von Hehn C, Tian L, et al. EMERGE and ENGAGE Topline Results: Two Phase 3 Studies to Evaluate Aducanumab in Patients with Early Alzheimer's Disease. 2019. investors.biogen.com/static-files/8e58afa4-ba37-4250-9a78-2ecfb63b1dcb.
23.
Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force working group–6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722-732.
24.
Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Willke RJ, et al. A health economics approach to US value assessment frameworks: summary and recommendations of the ISPOR special task force report [7]. Value Health. 2018;21(2):161-165.
25.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. CTAF Meeting on Alzheimer's Disease: Evidence Presentation. Published 2021. Accessed August 30, 2021. youtube.com/watch?v=Nu1xX2BUAL8.
26.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. CTAF Meeting on Alzheimer's Disease: Public Comments. Published 2021. Accessed August 30, 2021. youtube.com/watch?v=u8ajoNCQXFk.
27.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. CTAF Meeting on Alzheimer's Disease: Voting. Published 2021. Accessed August 30, 2021. youtube.com/watch?v=CHf_LMjgHag.
28.
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. CTAF Meeting on Alzheimer's Disease: Policy Roundtable. Published 2021. Accessed August 30, 2021. youtube.com/watch?v=x-Wou1wiCHQ.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2022 American Academy of Neurology.
Publication History
Received: September 10, 2021
Accepted: December 15, 2021
Published online: January 12, 2022
Published in print: March 1, 2022
Disclosure
All authors are paid salaries through the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. The work included within this article was not funded. The authors report no disclosures relevant to this article. Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures.
Study Funding
The authors report no targeted funding.
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citation information is sourced from Crossref Cited-by service.
Citations
Download Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited By
- What is a fair price for a medicine? Establishing the main elements of a fair price based on the current policy debate, Public Health, 231, (148-153), (2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2024.03.018
- New International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) Open-Source Model Framework for the Health Technology Assessment of Early Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment: Development and Use Cases, Value in Health, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.009
- Expedited regulatory product approval in the time of COVID-19, The Ocular Surface, 26, (345-348), (2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2022.05.007
Loading...
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginPurchase Options
The neurology.org payment platform is currently offline. Our technical team is working as quickly as possible to restore service.
If you need immediate support or to place an order, please call or email customer service:
- 1-800-638-3030 for U.S. customers - 8:30 - 7 pm ET (M-F)
- 1-301-223-2300 for customers outside the U.S. - 8:30 - 7 pm ET (M-F)
- [email protected]
We appreciate your patience during this time and apologize for any inconvenience.