Benefits of probabilistic sensitivity analysis – a review of NICE decisions

Abstract

ObjectiveSince 2004, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has required manufacturers to conduct a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) in their technology appraisals. The objective of this review is to assess the cost-effectiveness of different technology appraisals and compare them with the actual decision made by the NICE based on PSA.MethodsThe search term ‘probabilistic sensitivity analysis’ was used on the NICE home page (25 January 2012). The appraisals identified in the search were assessed and subjected to further review, if a probability of being cost-effective was provided, regardless of the threshold indicated. If several probabilities were provided, the number provided by the evidence review group was used. If several scenarios were presented, the base case scenario was chosen. Finally, the probabilities of being cost-effective were compared with the actual decision made, which could result in two outcomes: recommended or not recommended.ResultsA total of 31 assessments were included for the final review. The results were plotted on a graph to illustrate whether there was a relationship between the PSA outcomes and the final recommendation. The assessments were ranked according to their probability of being cost-effective.ConclusionA higher probability of a technology being cost-effective was correlated with more positive decision-making. There appeared to be a clear threshold at which technologies with a 40% certainty of being cost-effective tended to be recommended, whereas those below the threshold were not recommended. The reports suggested that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) estimate was not a robust driver of decision-making. A NICE applicant should pay increased attention to the PSA in addition to the ICER estimate.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

“…X-GEM considers direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs; includes revised inputs to reflect the changing treatment landscape of patients with bone complications and for loss of patent or change in acquisition cost for zoledronic acid; and provides a broader perspective of value. Key terms and definitions used in the model are provided in Table 1 [31][32][33][34][35][36] . Approximately 8% of patients with bone metastases related to solid tumors have renal impairment (i.e.…”

“…Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate potential uncertainty surrounding variability in the underlying model 32 . A number of one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted for the societal perspective analysis only.…”

Managing Uncertainties Due to Limited Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Novel Anti-Tuberculosis Regimens: A Systematic Review

“…The author extracted information on how uncertainties were dealt with, comparing them with the approaches used in early HTAs. In early HTAs, sensitivity analyses are applied rigorously to address the uncertainties upfront, including a deterministic sensitivity analysis that can inform the main drivers of the cost effectiveness, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) that shows the likelihood of a health technology to be cost effective given various thresholds [9,14]. The PSA informs decision makers on the scale of uncertainties surrounding the cost effectiveness estimates [15].…”

Limiar de eficiência em avaliações de tecnologias em saúde

“…Uma segunda abordagem é aplicar um método não paramétrico, o bootstrapping, que gera uma faixa de resultados de ICER (Drummond et al, 2015). Em 2013, Adailsson e Tomson identificaram um limiar de probabilidade de custo-eficácia nas decisões do NICE até 2013, em que a partir de 40% haveria uma maior chance de recomendação de uma intervenção avaliada (Adalsteinsson & Toumi, 2013).…”