HEOR that starts with the decision
HEOR is only as useful as the decision it informs. A model that answers the right comparison, and an evidence synthesis that an External Assessment Group can follow and accept, saves time and builds credibility when it matters most. We start every engagement by asking which decision the evidence must support, which agency will judge it, and what that agency is likely to question.
That means aligning the clinical question (the PICO), the synthesis methods and the economic model before any analysis begins, so that each piece of evidence flows into the next without rework.
What we deliver
- Health economic modelling: de novo and adapted cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-comparison and budget impact models
- Systematic literature reviews of clinical, economic, quality-of-life and cost evidence, and SLR updates
- Indirect treatment comparisons: NMA, MAIC, STC and ML-NMR
- Survival analysis and extrapolation, treatment switching adjustment and utility analysis
- Real-world evidence: data source selection, study design and analysis
- Global value dossiers, value stories and payer question-and-answer guides
- Model adaptation for local markets, with validation and technical reports
Where we work
Most of our work supports decisions in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and the EU joint clinical assessment, with model and evidence adaptation for Canada and other European markets. See UK HTA submissions, NCPE submissions in Ireland and EU JCA dossiers.
How we work
- Frame: Agree the decision problem, the comparators and the evidence each agency will expect.
- Plan: Design the evidence programme so the review, the synthesis and the model fit together.
- Build: Senior analysts build and document every component, with independent quality control.
- Defend: We support clarification questions, technical engagement and committee preparation.
Why Evidaxia
Evidaxia is led by Hasan Bari, a clinician and health economist with more than a decade in healthcare and a former NICE HTA Technical Lead and Analyst. We know how assessment groups critique models and evidence syntheses, because we have done that critique ourselves. Our insights set out how we think about the methods.