临床试验设计的信息价值:考虑所有相关参照物的重要性

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2024-04-07 DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01372-0
Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio, Ioanna Manolopoulou, Nicky J. Welton
{"title":"临床试验设计的信息价值:考虑所有相关参照物的重要性","authors":"Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio, Ioanna Manolopoulou, Nicky J. Welton","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01372-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Value of Information (VOI) analyses calculate the economic value that could be generated by obtaining further information to reduce uncertainty in a health economic decision model. VOI has been suggested as a tool for research prioritisation and trial design as it can highlight economically valuable avenues for future research. Recent methodological advances have made it increasingly feasible to use VOI in practice for research; however, there are critical differences between the VOI approach and the standard methods used to design research studies such as clinical trials. We aimed to highlight key differences between the research design approach based on VOI and standard clinical trial design methods, in particular the importance of considering the full decision context. We present two hypothetical examples to demonstrate that VOI methods are only accurate when (1) all feasible comparators are included in the decision model when designing research, and (2) all comparators are retained in the decision model once the data have been collected and a final treatment recommendation is made. Omitting comparators from either the design or analysis phase of research when using VOI methods can lead to incorrect trial designs and/or treatment recommendations. Overall, we conclude that incorrectly specifying the health economic model by ignoring potential comparators can lead to misleading VOI results and potentially waste scarce research resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value of Information for Clinical Trial Design: The Importance of Considering All Relevant Comparators\",\"authors\":\"Anna Heath, Gianluca Baio, Ioanna Manolopoulou, Nicky J. Welton\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40273-024-01372-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Value of Information (VOI) analyses calculate the economic value that could be generated by obtaining further information to reduce uncertainty in a health economic decision model. VOI has been suggested as a tool for research prioritisation and trial design as it can highlight economically valuable avenues for future research. Recent methodological advances have made it increasingly feasible to use VOI in practice for research; however, there are critical differences between the VOI approach and the standard methods used to design research studies such as clinical trials. We aimed to highlight key differences between the research design approach based on VOI and standard clinical trial design methods, in particular the importance of considering the full decision context. We present two hypothetical examples to demonstrate that VOI methods are only accurate when (1) all feasible comparators are included in the decision model when designing research, and (2) all comparators are retained in the decision model once the data have been collected and a final treatment recommendation is made. Omitting comparators from either the design or analysis phase of research when using VOI methods can lead to incorrect trial designs and/or treatment recommendations. Overall, we conclude that incorrectly specifying the health economic model by ignoring potential comparators can lead to misleading VOI results and potentially waste scarce research resources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01372-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01372-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

信息价值(VOI)分析计算的是通过获取更多信息以减少健康经济决策模型中的不确定性而产生的经济价值。VOI 被建议作为研究优先次序和试验设计的工具,因为它可以突出未来研究的经济价值途径。近期方法学上的进步使得在研究实践中使用 VOI 变得越来越可行;然而,VOI 方法与用于设计研究(如临床试验)的标准方法之间存在重大差异。我们的目的是强调基于自愿自主创新的研究设计方法与标准临床试验设计方法之间的主要区别,特别是考虑整个决策背景的重要性。我们举了两个假设的例子来说明,只有在以下情况下,VOI 方法才是准确的:(1) 在设计研究时,将所有可行的比较对象都纳入决策模型;(2) 在收集数据并提出最终治疗建议后,将所有比较对象都保留在决策模型中。使用 VOI 方法时,如果在研究的设计或分析阶段遗漏比较对象,可能会导致不正确的试验设计和/或治疗建议。总之,我们得出的结论是,忽略潜在的参照物而错误地指定健康经济模型会导致误导性的 VOI 结果,并可能浪费稀缺的研究资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Value of Information for Clinical Trial Design: The Importance of Considering All Relevant Comparators

Value of Information (VOI) analyses calculate the economic value that could be generated by obtaining further information to reduce uncertainty in a health economic decision model. VOI has been suggested as a tool for research prioritisation and trial design as it can highlight economically valuable avenues for future research. Recent methodological advances have made it increasingly feasible to use VOI in practice for research; however, there are critical differences between the VOI approach and the standard methods used to design research studies such as clinical trials. We aimed to highlight key differences between the research design approach based on VOI and standard clinical trial design methods, in particular the importance of considering the full decision context. We present two hypothetical examples to demonstrate that VOI methods are only accurate when (1) all feasible comparators are included in the decision model when designing research, and (2) all comparators are retained in the decision model once the data have been collected and a final treatment recommendation is made. Omitting comparators from either the design or analysis phase of research when using VOI methods can lead to incorrect trial designs and/or treatment recommendations. Overall, we conclude that incorrectly specifying the health economic model by ignoring potential comparators can lead to misleading VOI results and potentially waste scarce research resources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
期刊最新文献
Design and Features of Pricing and Payment Schemes for Health Technologies: A Scoping Review and a Proposal for a Flexible Need-Driven Classification. Economic Burden Associated with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in the United States. The Impact of Tocilizumab Coverage on Health Equity for Inpatients with COVID-19 in the USA: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Managed Entry Agreements for High-Cost, One-Off Potentially Curative Therapies: A Framework and Calculation Tool to Determine Their Suitability. How Much Better is Faster? Empirical Tests of QALY Assumptions in Health-Outcome Sequences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1