Study identification
M.P. McIlwaine, M. Richmond, J.L. Agnew, N. Alarie, L. Lands, M. Chilvers, F. Ratjen
WS5.6 Cost-effectiveness of performing positive expiratory pressure versus high frequency chest wall oscillation. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, Volume 13, Supplement 2, Page S11
Guidance topic: Cystic FibrosisQuestion no: 6
Section 1: Applicability (relevance to specific review questions and the NICE reference case as described in section 7.5)Yes/partly/no/unclear/NAComments
1.1 Is the study population appropriate for the review question?YesPeople with CF
1.2 Are the interventions appropriate for the review question?YesPEP & HFCWO
1.3 Is the system in which the study was conducted sufficiently similar to the current UK context?YesCanada
1.4 Are the perspectives clearly stated and are they appropriate for the review question?UnclearNon-societal and direct heath care inferred
1.5 Are all direct effects on individuals included, and are all other effects included where they are material?PartlyHRQoL not considered
1.6 Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately?NATime horizon: 1 year
1.7 Is QALY used as an outcome, and was it derived using NICE’s preferred methods? If not, describe rationale and outcomes used in line with analytical perspectives taken (item 1.4 above).NoOutcome measure: cost of therapy & number of exacerbations
1.8 Are costs and outcomes from other sectors fully and appropriately measured and valued?Unclear
1.9 Overall judgement: Partially applicable
Other comments:
Section 2: Study limitations (the level of methodological quality)Yes/partly/no/unclear/NAComments
2.1 Does the model structure adequately reflect the nature of the topic under evaluation?NACost-benefit analysis alongside RCT
2.2 Is the time horizon sufficiently long to reflect all important differences in costs and outcomes?PartlyTime horizon: 1 year
2.3 Are all important and relevant outcomes included?PartlyQoL outcomes not considered
2.4 Are the estimates of baseline outcomes from the best available source?YesFrom RCT
2.5 Are the estimates of relative intervention effects from the best available source?YesFrom RCT
2.6 Are all important and relevant costs included?PartlyLack of detail
2.7 Are the estimates of resource use from the best available source?PartlyFrom RCT
2.8 Are the unit costs of resources from the best available source?UnclearSources not reported
2.9 Is an appropriate incremental analysis presented or can it be calculated from the data?YesDifference in cost / difference in exacerbations calculable
2.10 Are all important parameters whose values are uncertain subjected to appropriate sensitivity analysis?NoOnly point estimates reported
2.11 Is there any potential conflict of interest?No
2.12 Overall assessment: Severe limitations
Other comments:
Are money-costs and ‘benefits’ which are savings of future money-costs evaluated? No
Have all important and relevant costs and outcomes for each alternative been quantified in money terms? Yes, medical costs appear to include the cost of treating exacerbations, but limited details in conference paper
Has at least 1 of net present value, benefit/cost ratio and payback period been estimated? No, only net present value. Equipment does not appear to be annuitised over the lifespan
Were any assumptions of materiality made? No, all relevant costs appear to be included, but limited details in conference paper

From: Appendix M, Health economics quality assessment

Cover of Cystic Fibrosis
Cystic Fibrosis: Diagnosis and management.
NICE Guideline, No. 78.
National Guideline Alliance (UK).
Copyright © NICE 2017.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

External link. Please review our privacy policy.