Designing a Complex Intervention Using Early Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Case Study of an Artificial Intelligence-based Algorithm to Identify Vertebral Fragility Fractures

Author(s)

Dalal G1, Youn JH2, Kariki E3, Bromiley PA4, Luetchens S5, Cootes TF4, Payne K2
1The University of Manchester, Manchester, LAN, UK, 2The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 3Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, LAN, UK, 4University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 5Optasia Medical Limited, Manchester, UK

OBJECTIVES: Understand if, and how, using an artificial intelligence-based algorithm (AI) to identify vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) from routine computed tomography scans (CT) should be used to maximise added value to patients.

METHODS: A de-novo decision-analytic model (lifetime horizon; NHS-England perspective) linking a bespoke decision-tree with a published discrete-event simulation (DES) was conceptualised and developed for a cohort of 400,000 individuals aged 70 years. The intervention (ASPIRETM) used AI to identify VFFs from existing CT with referral (to Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) or general practitioner) to start a bisphosphonate. The comparator was the current practice of radiologists identifying VFFs from CT and referral to start a bisphosphonate. Technical validation was completed using TECH-VER criteria. Model input parameters were identified from published literature and structured expert elicitation. For ASPIRETM and current practice the base-case analysis reported: number of VFFs identified; costs (£; 2014); quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs). Uncertainty was quantified using one-way, two-way, scenario, threshold and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: ASPIRETM identified 47,029 additional VFFs, costing an additional £8,681,804 (95% confidence interval (CI): £8,606,882 to £8,756,726) generating 139 (CI: 137 to 140) QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £185 per additional VFF identified. All QALY gains (0.00035 per person) were derived from starting a bisphosphonate (the DES component). Threshold analysis showed increasing QALY gains to 0.00108 resulted in £20,000 per QALY gained. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were: specificity; ASPIRETM unit cost; radiologists’ time averted by ASPIRETM and FLS cost. There was substantial uncertainty in the limited evidence available.

CONCLUSIONS: Indicative cost-effectiveness analysis shows the importance of embedding ASPIRETM into a complex intervention directing people to effective bone management strategies (fall prevention, exercise and nutrition programmes) in addition to bisphosphonates and have data to show radiologists’ time averted. Importantly, decision-makers must be sufficiently certain in the model-estimated QALY gains from bisphosphonates to understand the potential value of ASPIRETM.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2021-05, ISPOR 2021, Montreal, Canada

Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 5, S1 (May 2021)

Code

PMD5

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Medical Technologies, Methodological & Statistical Research

Topic Subcategory

Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Diagnostics & Imaging, Digital Health

Disease

Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders, Medical Devices

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×