IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health

Listed author(s):
  • Salah Ghabri

    ()

    (Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS))

  • Françoise F. Hamers

    (Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS))

  • Jean Michel Josselin

    (University of Rennes 1 and CREM-CNRS)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract Objectives The objective of this paper was to evaluate how uncertainty has been accounted for in the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) submitted by manufacturers to the French National Authority for Health (HAS) and to identify recurring concerns in these submissions. Methods We used a cross-sectional design to evaluate manufacturers’ submissions from the beginning of the evaluation process in October 2013 to the end of May 2015 (n = 28). The sources of uncertainty attached to these CEAs were categorized and assessed. Relevant data were extracted independently by two assessors. Results Adherence to the HAS reference case was generally considered to be acceptable. Methodological uncertainty and parameter uncertainty were the sources of uncertainty that were most frequently explored by manufacturers. The quality of reporting of deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis varied substantially across submissions, with a frequent lack of justification of the plausible range of parameter point estimates in 12 submissions (43 %). Structural uncertainty was explored much less frequently. Concerns related to omission of either important clinical events or relevant health states or extrapolation of the effects of the technology beyond the time horizon of the clinical trials were identified in 16 submissions (57 %). Conclusions This study presented a characterization of the treatment of uncertainty for the first 28 manufacturers’ submissions to the HAS. This work identified important concerns regarding the exploration of sources of uncertainty. The findings may help manufacturers to improve the quality of their submissions and may provide useful insights for extending guidelines on uncertainty analysis in CEAs submitted to the HAS.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0381-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 34 (2016)
    Issue (Month): 6 (June)
    Pages: 617-624

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0381-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0381-4
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

    Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Anthony O'Hagan & Matt Stevenson & Jason Madan, 2007. "Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1009-1023.
    2. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415.
    3. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0381-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.