Bayesian decision theory can be used not only to establish the optimal sample size and its allocation in a single clinical study but also to identify an optimal portfolio of research combining different types of study design. Within a single study, the highest societal payoff to proposed research is achieved when its sample sizes and allocation between available treatment options are chosen to maximize the expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). Where a number of different types of study informing different parameters in the decision problem could be conducted, the simultaneous estimation of ENBS across all dimensions of the design space is required to identify the optimal sample sizes and allocations within such a research portfolio. This is illustrated through a simple example of a decision model of zanamivir for the treatment of influenza. The possible study designs include: 1) a single trial of all the parameters, 2) a clinical trial providing evidence only on clinical endpoints, 3) an epidemiological study of natural history of disease, and 4) a survey of quality of life. The possible combinations, samples sizes, and allocation between trial arms are evaluated over a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. The computational challenges are addressed by implementing optimization algorithms to search the ENBS surface more efficiently over such large dimensions.
Claxton K., Cohen JT, Neumann PJWhen is evidence sufficient? Health Affairs. 2005;24:93-101.
2.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NIHCE; 2004.
3.
Chalkidou K. , Hoy A., Littlejohns P.Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med . 2007;100:453.
4.
Berger JOStatistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1985.
5.
Howard RAInformation value theory. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern . 1966;2:22-6.
6.
Parmigiani G.Modeling in Medical Decision Making. Chichester, UK: John Wiley; 2002.
7.
Pratt JW, Raiffa H., Schlaifer R.Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995.
Schlaifer R.Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959.
10.
Hammitt JK, Cave JAK.Research Planning for Food Safety: A Value-of-Information Approach . Santa Monica, CA: RAND;1991.
11.
Thompson KM , Evans JSThe value of improved national exposure information for perchloroethylene (perc): a case study for dry cleaners . Risk Anal. 1997;17:253-71.
12.
Thompson KM , Graham JDGoing beyond the single number: using probabilistic risk assessment to improve risk management. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 1996;2:1008-34.
13.
Briggs AH, Claxton K., Sculpher MJDecision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press;2006 .
14.
Claxton K.Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8:269-74.
15.
Claxton K.The irrelevance of inference: a decision making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;17:341-64.
16.
Felli JC, Hazen GBSensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information . Med Decis Making. 1998;18:95.
17.
Yokota F., Thompson KMValue of information literature analysis: a review of applications in health risk management. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:287.
18.
Ades AE, Lu G., Claxton K.Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling . Med Decis Making. 2004;24:207-27.
19.
Bojke L., Claxton K., Sculpher M., Palmer S., Philips Z.The cost-effectiveness and value of information associated with repeat screening for age related macular degeneration. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:33-43.
20.
Claxton K., Sculpher MJUsing value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. PharmacoEconomics . 2006;24:1055-68.
21.
Colbourn TE , Asseburg C., Bojke L., et al. Preventive strategies for group B streptococcal and other bacterial infections in early infancy: cost effectiveness and value of information analyses. BMJ. 2007 ;335:655-62.
22.
Fenwick E., Palmer S., Claxton K., Sculpher M., Abrams K., Sutton A.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;26:480.
23.
Philips Z., Claxton K., Palmer P.The half-life of truth: what are appropriate time horizons for research decisions ? Med Decis Making. 2008;28:287-99.
24.
Brennan A., Kharroubi SAEfficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation. J Health Econ. 2007 ;26:122-48.
25.
Brennan A., Kharroubi SAExpected value of sample information for Weibull survival data. Health Econ. 2007;16: 1205-25.
26.
Eckermann S. , Willan ARExpected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007;16:195-209.
27.
Willan AR, Pinto EMThe value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005;24:1791-1806.
28.
Chaloner K. , Verdinelli I.Bayesian experimental design: a review. Stat Sci. 1995;10:273-304.
29.
Pezeshk H.Bayesian techniques for sample size determination in clinical trials: a short review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2003 ;12:489-504.
30.
Claxton KP, Thompson KMA dynamic programming approach to the efficient design of clinical trials . J Health Econ. 2001;20:797-822.
31.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).Guidance on the Use of Zanamivir for the Treatment of Influenza in Adults. London: NICE ; 2000.
32.
Burls A., Clark W., Stewart T.Zanamivir for the Treatment of Influenza in Adults: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(9):1-87.
33.
Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd.Submission to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence for RelenzaTM (zanamivir) in the treatment of influenza. First submission to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2000 .
34.
Meier CR, Napalkov PN, Wegmüller Y., Jefferson T., Jick H.Population-based study on incidence, risk factors, clinical complications and drug utilisation associated with influenza in the United Kingdom. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;19: 834-42.
35.
Netton A., Dennett J.Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 1998/99. Kent, UK : Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 1998.
36.
Stinnett AA , Mullahy J.Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:S68.
37.
Fenwick E., Claxton KP, Sculpher MJRepresenting uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves . Health Econ. 2001;10:779-87.
38.
Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3:309-19. 39. Griffin S, Claxton K, Palmer S, Sculpher MJ. Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:E8.
39.
Palmer S., Smith PCIncorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies . J Health Econ. 2000;19:755-66.
40.
Gelman A., Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DBBayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004.
41.
Stevenson M. , Oakley J., Chilcott J.Gaussian process modelling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modelling: a case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:89-100.
42.
O’Hagan A., Stevenson M., Madan J.Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA. Health Econ. 2007;16:1009-23.
43.
Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1996. 45. Nocedal J, Wright SJ. Numerical Optimization. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999.
44.
Shapiro A.Stochastic Programming by Monte Carlo Simulation Methods. Atlanta: School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology; 2003.
45.
Armitage P.The search for optimality in clinical trials . Int Stat Rev. 1985;53:15-24.
46.
Bather JARandomized allocation of treatments in sequential experiments. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1981;43:265-92.
47.
Whitehead J.The Design and Analysis of Sequential Clinical Trials. Chichester, UK: John Wiley;1997 .
48.
Zelen M.Play the winner rule and the controlled clinical trial. J Am Stat Assoc. 1969;64:131-46.
