SummaryRecently the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) updated its methods guidance for technology assessment. One aspect of the new guidance is to require the use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis with all costeffectiveness models submitted to the Institute. The purpose of this paper is to place the NICE guidance on dealing with uncertainty into a broader context of the requirements for decision making; to explain the general approach that was taken in its development; and to address each of the issues which have been raised in the debate about the role of probabilistic sensitivity analysis in general. The most appropriate starting point for developing guidance is to establish what is required for decision making. On the basis of these requirements, the methods and framework of analysis which can best meet these needs can then be identified. It will be argued that the guidance on dealing with uncertainty and, in particular, the requirement for probabilistic sensitivity analysis, is justified by the requirements of the type of decisions that NICE is asked to make. Given this foundation, the main issues and criticisms raised during and after the consultation process are reviewed. Finally, some of the methodological challenges posed by the need fully to characterise decision uncertainty and to inform the research agenda will be identified and discussed.

BackgroundFebrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity.ResultsTwenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98).ConclusionsPrimary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.

The limitations associated with switching adjustment methods such as the RPSFTM and IPCW mean that they are appropriate in different scenarios. In some scenarios, both methods may be prone to bias; "2-stage" methods should be considered, and intention-to-treat analyses may sometimes produce the least bias. The data requirements of adjustment methods also have important implications for clinical trialists.