We would like to thank Drs Naudet, Granger and Braillon for their interest in our work, and for opening a discussion that is of interest here: the consideration of complementary evidence for health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. By ‘complementary evidence’, we refer to clinical trials, patient’s preference and quality of life, clinical guidance, current clinical practice, and public health, cost-effectiveness and budget impact assessments. As such, it should be understood that a cost-effectiveness analysis, such as the one discussed here, represents an element of evidence that is weighted in relation to a continuum of complementary evidence when assessed by HTA decision makers.
Dr Naudet and colleagues have raised several points that we would like to comment on. Firstly, the results and conclusions of the meta-analysis by Palpacuer et al., (2015) should be interpreted with caution, especially from an HTA decision-making point …Please contact the library to request a copy of this article - http://bit.ly/1Xyazai