Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness mode's: A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports

被引:31
|
作者
Elston, Julian [1 ]
Taylor, Rod S. [2 ]
机构
[1] Devon Primary Care Trust, Dept Publ Hlth, Exeter EX2 4QL, Devon, England
[2] Univ Exeter, Peninsula Med Sch, Hlth Serv Res, Dept Primary Care, Exeter EX2 5DW, Devon, England
关键词
Surrogate outcomes; Intermediate outcomes; Biomarkers; RENAL-TRANSPLANTATION; CLINICAL-TRIALS; END-POINTS;
D O I
10.1017/S0266462309090023
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the use of surrogate outcomes-a substitute outcome that predicts final patient-related outcomes-in cost-effectiveness models (CEM) within health technology assessment (HTA) reports and provide guidance for their future use. Methods: Our sampling frame was all UK HTA Program monograph series reports published in 2005 and 2006. Reports were included if they addressed a treatment effectiveness/efficacy question and included a CEM based on a surrogate outcome. The two authors independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the following data was extracted from included reports: source of surrogate outcome, level of evidence for validation of the surrogate outcomes, methods used in report to quantify link between surrogate outcome and final outcome, and consideration of the uncertainty associated with using surrogate outcomes in the results or conclusions of report. Results: Of 100 HTA reports, 35 complied with the inclusion criteria. Of these, four (111 percent) reports included a CEM based on a surrogate outcome. All four reports sourced treatment-related changes in surrogate outcome through a systematic review of the literature. One provided Level 1 surrogate evidence (randomized controlled trial data showing a strong association between the change in surrogate outcome and change final outcome); two reported Level 2 evidence (observational study data); and one provided Level 3 evidence (disease natural/ history data). The transparency of quantification and exploration of uncertainty of the surrogate and final outcome relationship varied considerably across all four reports. Conclusions: Recommendations are made for the use of surrogate outcomes in future HTA reports.
引用
收藏
页码:6 / 13
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The use of surrogate outcomes in mode-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports
    Taylor, R. S.
    Elston, J.
    [J]. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2009, 13 (08) : 1 - +
  • [2] Cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies in the United Kingdom - A systematic review
    Canter, Peter H.
    Coon, Joanna Thompson
    Ernst, Edzard
    [J]. EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, 2006, 3 (04) : 425 - 432
  • [3] Exploratory Approach to Incorporating Carbon Footprint in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Modelling: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Interventions in the United Kingdom
    Max Kindred
    Zahratu Shabrina
    Neily Zakiyah
    [J]. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2024, 22 : 49 - 60
  • [4] Exploratory Approach to Incorporating Carbon Footprint in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Modelling: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Interventions in the United Kingdom
    Kindred, Max
    Shabrina, Zahratu
    Zakiyah, Neily
    [J]. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY, 2024, 22 (01) : 49 - 60
  • [5] An assessment of the cost-effectiveness of midwife-led care in the United Kingdom
    Ryan, Padhraig
    Revill, Paul
    Devane, Declan
    Normand, Charles
    [J]. MIDWIFERY, 2013, 29 (04) : 368 - 376
  • [6] WHAT METHODS ARE APPLIED IN ASSESSESSING THE CLINICAL AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES BASED ON THE USE OF SURROGATE OUTCOMES: A COMPARISON OF EVALUATION REPORTS ACROSS INTERNATIONAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES
    Ciani, O.
    Grigore, B.
    Taylor, R.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 : S316 - S316
  • [7] SURROGATE, FRIEND OR FOE? THE NEED FOR CASE STUDIES OF THE USE OF SURROGATE OUTCOMES IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES
    Ciani, O.
    Taylor, R. S.
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2013, 22 (02) : 251 - 252
  • [8] SURROGATE ENDPOINTS IN ONCOLOGY: A REVIEW OF RECENT HEALTH TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
    Wissinger, E.
    Koufopoulou, M.
    Fusco, N.
    Stewart, F.
    Oladapo, T.
    Depalma, S.
    Devani, D.
    Rangi, N. D.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (06) : S265 - S266
  • [9] Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of visipaque compared to omnipaque in the United Kingdom (UK)
    Zyczynski, T.
    Beard, S.
    Earnshaw, S. R.
    McDade, C. L.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2007, 10 (06) : A419 - A419
  • [10] A cceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold
    Griffiths, Elizabeth A.
    Hendrich, Janek K.
    Stoddart, Samuel D. R.
    Walsh, Sean C. M.
    [J]. CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2015, 7 : 463 - 476