IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i4p427-438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Criterion and Value of Information Analysis: Optimal Aspirin Dosage for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

Author

Listed:
  • Anirban Basu

    (The Comparative Health Outcome, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy and the Departments of Health Services and Economics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA)

  • David Meltzer

    (Section of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harris School of Public Policy Studies and the Department of Economics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

Abstract

Background. In value of information (VOI) calculations, such as the expected value of perfect information (EVPI), partial perfect information (EVPPI), sample information (EVSI) or implementation (EVIM), the maximum expected value criterion defines the decision making criterion for the adoption of decisions for treatments. However, because decision makers are often risk averse, the uncertainty that accompanies a decision problem may influence adoption decisions. Methods. VOI estimates were studied based on 2 alternate decision making criteria: 1) maximum expected value and 2) 95% credible intervals. These criteria were applied to a probabilistic minimal lifetime model of incident cardiovascular events and mortality among target patients comparing 2 daily doses of aspirin (81 mg and 325 mg). Model parameters were based on literature reviews and data analyses. Results. Expected life-years under 81 v. 325 mg of aspirin were estimated to be 14.86 (SE, 0.10) and 14.72 (0.31) respectively, with a difference of 0.14 (0.29). The probability that 81 mg was optimal was estimated to be 67%. Under Decision Criterion 1, EVIM and EVPI were about 233-thousand and 411-thousand years, respectively. Under Criterion 2, EVIM was undefined, as there remains ambiguity about what to implement. Consequently, EVPI becomes the entire 644-thousand years. Also, under Criterion 1, EVSI reaches an asymptote at a sample size of 10,000 per arm, with minimal gains in value beyond a 5,000 person per arm trial. With Criterion 2, a sample size of 10,000 per arm or higher is substantially more valuable than lower sample sizes. Conclusion. Alternative decision criteria for treatment adoption change the VOI. Decision criteria should be justified for VOI analyses. If multiple criteria may be relevant, analysts should complete VOI estimates using multiple criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Anirban Basu & David Meltzer, 2018. "Decision Criterion and Value of Information Analysis: Optimal Aspirin Dosage for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 427-438, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:4:p:427-438
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17746988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17746988
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17746988?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berger, Loïc & Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 559-569.
    2. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    3. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, 1996. "An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority‐setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 513-524, November.
    4. Susan C. Griffin & Karl P. Claxton & Stephen J. Palmer & Mark J. Sculpher, 2011. "Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 212-224, February.
    5. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, "undated". "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel F. Otero-Leon & Mariel S. Lavieri & Brian T. Denton & Jeremy Sussman & Rodney A. Hayward, 2023. "Monitoring policy in the context of preventive treatment of cardiovascular disease," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 93-116, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    2. Samer A. Kharroubi & Alan Brennan & Mark Strong, 2011. "Estimating Expected Value of Sample Information for Incomplete Data Models Using Bayesian Approximation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 839-852, November.
    3. Alan Brennan & Samer A. Kharroubi, 2007. "Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1205-1225, November.
    4. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    5. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    6. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 6," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 671-678, July.
    7. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    8. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Nicky J. Welton & Jason J. Madan & Deborah M. Caldwell & Tim J. Peters & Anthony E. Ades, 2014. "Expected Value of Sample Information for Multi-Arm Cluster Randomized Trials with Binary Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 352-365, April.
    10. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan & Penny Breeze, 2015. "Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 570-583, July.
    11. Fleurence, Rachael L. & Torgerson, David J., 2004. "Setting priorities for research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan, 2014. "Estimating Multiparameter Partial Expected Value of Perfect Information from a Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(3), pages 311-326, April.
    13. Kasper M. Johannesen & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Allan J. Wailoo, 2018. "How to design the cost‐effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 41-54, February.
    14. Daniele Bregantini, 2014. "Don’t Stop ’Til You Get Enough: a quickest detection approach to HTA," Discussion Papers 14/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
    15. Martin Forster & Paolo Pertile, 2013. "Optimal decision rules for HTA under uncertainty: a wider, dynamic perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1507-1514, December.
    16. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    17. Franck Maunoury & Anastasiia Motrunich & Maria Palka-Santini & Stéphanie F Bernatchez & Stéphane Ruckly & Jean-François Timsit, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Transparent Antimicrobial Dressing for Managing Central Venous and Arterial Catheters in Intensive Care Units," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    18. Sze Huey Tan & Keith R. Abrams & Sylwia Bujkiewicz, 2018. "Bayesian Multiparameter Evidence Synthesis to Inform Decision Making: A Case Study in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 834-848, October.
    19. Ana P. Johnson-Masotti & Purushottam W. Laud & Raymond G. Hoffmann & Matthew J. Hayat & Steven D. Pinkerton, 2004. "A Bayesian Approach to Net Health Benefits: An Illustration and Application to Modeling HIV Prevention," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 634-653, November.
    20. Bognar, Katalin & Romley, John A. & Bae, Jay P. & Murray, James & Chou, Jacquelyn W. & Lakdawalla, Darius N., 2017. "The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:4:p:427-438. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.