Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T14:20:03.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: A Bayesian approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Laura Vallejo-Torres*
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Lotte M. G. Steuten
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Martin J. Buxton
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Alan J. Girling
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Richard J. Lilford
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Terry Young
Affiliation:
Brunel University
*
Corresponding author. Laura Vallejo-Torres, Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH), Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom. Email: laura.vallejo@brunel.ac.uk, Phone: +44 (0)1895 267394. Fax: +44 (0)1895 269708.

Abstract

Objectives: Medical device companies are under growing pressure to provide health-economic evaluations of their products. Cost-effectiveness analyses are commonly undertaken as a one-off exercise at the late stage of development of new technologies; however, the benefits of an iterative use of economic evaluation during the development process of new products have been acknowledged in the literature. Furthermore, the use of Bayesian methods within health technology assessment has been shown to be of particular value in the dynamic framework of technology appraisal when new information becomes available in the life cycle of technologies.

Methods: In this study, we set out a methodology to adapt these methods for their application to directly support investment decisions in a commercial setting from early stages of the development of new medical devices.

Results and Conclusions: Starting with relatively simple analysis from the very early development phase and proceeding to greater depth of analysis at later stages, a Bayesian approach facilitates the incorporation of all available evidence and would help companies to make better informed choices at each decision point.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Campbell, G. Guidance of the use of Bayesian statistic in medical device clinical trials. Food and Drug Administration; 2006. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/osb/guidance/1601.pdf.Google Scholar
2. Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Drummond, M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002;360:711715.Google Scholar
3. Cosh, E, Girling, A, Lilford, R, et al. Investing in new medical technologies: A decision framework. J Commer Biotechnol. 2007;13:263271.Google Scholar
4. Dong, H, Buxton, M. Early assessment of the likely cost-effectiveness of a new technology: A Markov model with probabilistic sensitivity analysis of computer-assisted total knee replacement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:191202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Fenwick, E, Palmer, S, Claxton, K, et al. An iterative Bayesian approach to health technology assessment: Application to a policy of preoperative optimization for patients undergoing major elective surgery. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:480496.Google Scholar
6. Girling, A, Freeman, G, Gordon, JP, et al. Modelling payback from research into the efficacy of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:269277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Martin, J, Murphy, E, Crowe, JA, Norris, BJ. Capturing user requirements in medical device development: The role of ergonomics. Physiol Meas. 2006;27:R49-R62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2004.Google Scholar
9. O'Hagan, A, Buck, CE, Daneshkhah, A, et al. Uncertain judgements - Eliciting experts' probabilities. London: Wiley; 2006.Google Scholar
10. Prevost, TC, Abrams, KR, Jones, DR. Hierarchical models in generalised synthesis of evidence: An example based on studies of breast cancer. Stat Med. 2000;19:33593376.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Drummond, M, McCabe, C. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ. 2006;15:677687.Google Scholar
12. Sculpher, M, Drummond, M, Buxton, MJ. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:2630.Google Scholar
13. Siebert, M, Clauss, LC, Carlisle, M, et al. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe: What must be considered. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:733740.Google ScholarPubMed
14. Spiegelhalter, DJ, Myles, JP, Jones, DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: A review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1130.Google Scholar
15. Spiegelhalter, DJ, Myles, JP, Jones, DR, Abrams, KR. Methods in health service research: An introduction to Bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ. 1999;319:508512.Google Scholar
16. Sutton, A, Abrams, KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001;10:277303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Torgerson, CJ, Torgerson, DJ. The need for pragmatic experimentation in educational research. Econ Innov New Technol. 2007;16:323330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. van Til, JA, Renzenbrink, GJ, Groothuis, K, Ijzerman, MJ. A preliminary economic evaluation of percutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the treatment of hemiplegic shoulder pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:645651.Google Scholar
19. Warburton, RN. Patient safety—how much is enough? Health policy 2005;75:223232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar