Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
PharmacoEconomics
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 5/2016

01.05.2016 | Review Article

Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches

verfasst von: Dyfrig Hughes, Joanna Charles, Dalia Dawoud, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Emily Holmes, Carys Jones, Paul Parham, Catrin Plumpton, Colin Ridyard, Huw Lloyd-Williams, Eifiona Wood, Seow Tien Yeo

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 5/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Trial-based economic evaluations are an important aspect of health technology assessment. The availability of patient-level data coupled with unbiased estimates of clinical outcomes means that randomised controlled trials are effective vehicles for the generation of economic data. However there are methodological challenges to trial-based evaluations, including the collection of reliable data on resource use and cost, choice of health outcome measure, calculating minimally important differences, dealing with missing data, extrapolating outcomes and costs over time and the analysis of multinational trials. This review focuses on the state of the art of selective elements regarding the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations. The limitations of existing approaches are detailed and novel methods introduced. The review is internationally relevant but with a focus towards practice in the UK.
Literatur
1.
Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Drummond M, McCabe C. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ. 2006;15(7):677–87.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Glick H, Doshi J, Sonad S, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
3.
4.
Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, Reed SD, Augustovski F, Jonsson B, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II. An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2015;18(2):161–72.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Methods for the collection of resource use data within clinical trials: a systematic review of studies funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment program. Value Health. 2010;13(8):867–72.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ahonkallio S, Santala M, Valtonen H, Martikainen H. Cost-minimisation analysis of endometrial thermal ablation in a day case or outpatient setting under different anaesthesia regimens. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162(1):102–4.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Evans WK, Coyle D, Gafni A, Walker H, National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group-Working Group on Economic Analysis. Which cancer clinical trials should be considered for economic evaluation? Selection criteria from the National Cancer Institute of Canada’s Working Group on Economic Analysis. Chronic Dis Can. 2003;24(4):102–7.PubMed
9.
Revicki DA, Paramore C, Rentz AM. Incorporating pharmacoeconomic and health outcomes into randomized clinical trials. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005;5(6):695–703.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Marshall DA, Hux M. Design and analysis issues for economic analysis alongside clinical trials. Med Care. 2009;47(7 Suppl 1):S14–20.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ramsey SD, McIntosh M, Sullivan SD. Design issues for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses alongside clinical trials. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001;22:129–41.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, Edmunds WJ. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomized trials: a systematic review and checklist for critical appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(1):209–20.CrossRef
14.
Edwards RT, Charles JM, Lloyd-Williams H. Public health economics: a systematic review of guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions and discussion of key methodological issues. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
Payne K, McAllister M, Davies LM. Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ. 2013;22(3):258–71.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Weatherly H, Drummond M, Claxton K, Cookson R, Ferguson B, Godfrey C, et al. Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy. 2009;93(2–3):85–92.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Fischer AJ, Threlfall A, Meah S, Cookson R, Rutter H, Kelly MP. The appraisal of public health interventions: an overview. J Public Health (Oxf). 2013;35(4):488–94.CrossRef
19.
Martin A, Jones A, Mugford M, Shemilt I, Hancock R, Wittenberg R. Methods used to identify and measure resource use in economic evaluations: a systematic review of questionnaires for older people. Health Econ. 2012;21(8):1017–22.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Chisholm D, Knapp MR, Knudsen HC, Amaddeo F, Gaite L, van Wijngaarden B. Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory-European Version: development of an instrument for international research. EPSILON Study 5. European Psychiatric Services: inputs linked to outcome domains and needs. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2000;177(39):s28–33.CrossRef
22.
Clarke PM, Fiebig DG, Gerdtham UG. Optimal recall length in survey design. J Health Econ. 2008;27(5):1275–84.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Brown JB, Adams ME. Patients as reliable reporters of medical care process. Recall of ambulatory encounter events. Med Care. 1992;30(5):400–11.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Evans CJ, Crawford B. Data collection methods in prospective economic evaluations: how accurate are the results? Value Health. 2000;3(4):277–86.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bhandari A, Wagner T. Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):217–35.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Richards SH, Coast J, Peters TJ. Patient-reported use of health service resources compared with information from health providers. Health Soc Care Community. 2003;11(6):510–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ridyard CH, Hughes DA, DIRUM Team. Development of a database of instruments for resource-use measurement: purpose, feasibility, and design. Value Health. 2012;15(5):650–5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
McPherson CJ, Addington-Hall JM. Judging the quality of care at the end of life: can proxies provide reliable information? Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(1):95–109.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Lyons RA, Jones KH, John G, Brooks CJ, Verplancke JP, Ford DV, et al. The SAIL databank: linking multiple health and social care datasets. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009;9:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Hounsome N, Orrell M, Edwards RT. EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health. 2011;14(2):390–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Noyes JP, Williams A, Allen D, Brocklehurst P, Carter C, Gregory JW, et al. Evidence into practice: evaluating a child-centred intervention for diabetes medicine management. The EPIC Project. BMC Pediatr. 2010;10:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Noyes JP, Lowes L, Whitaker R, Allen D, Carter C, Edwards RT, et al. Developing and evaluating a child-centred intervention for diabetes medicine management using mixed methods and a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2(8). doi:10.​3310/​hsdr02080.
34.
Thorrington D, Eames K. Measuring health utilities in children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135672.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
36.
37.
Mulhern B, Rowen D, Jacoby A, Marson T, Snape D, Hughes D, et al. The development of a QALY measure for epilepsy: NEWQOL-6D. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24(1):36–43.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Marson AG, Appleton R, Baker GA, Chadwick DW, Doughty J, Eaton B, et al. A randomised controlled trial examining the longer-term outcomes of standard versus new antiepileptic drugs. The SANAD Trial. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(37):iii–iv, ix–x, 1–134.
39.
Versteegh MM, Leunis A, Uyl-de Groot CA, Stolk EA. Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health. 2012;15(3):504–13.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Mak. 2002;22(4):340–9.CrossRef
41.
Briggs AH, Bousquet J, Wallace MV, Busse WW, Clark TJ, Pedersen SE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of asthma control: an economic appraisal of the GOAL study. Allergy. 2006;61(5):531–6.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care, vol. 11. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.
43.
Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials–extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(6):743–54.CrossRef
44.
Grieve R, Hawkins N, Pennington M. Extrapolation of survival data in cost-effectiveness analyses: improving the current state of play. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(6):740–2.CrossRef
45.
Bagust A, Beale S. Survival analysis and extrapolation modeling of time-to-event clinical trial data for economic evaluation: an alternative approach. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(3):343–51.CrossRef
46.
Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(4):675–92.CrossRef
47.
Jackson CH, Bojke L, Thompson SG, Claxton K, Sharples LD. A framework for addressing structural uncertainty in decision models. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(4):662–74.CrossRef
48.
Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843–50.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Noble SM, Hollingworth W, Tilling K. Missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the current state of play. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):187–200.CrossRefPubMed
50.
White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377–99.CrossRefPubMed
51.
White IR, Thompson SG. Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med. 2005;24(7):993–1007.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health. 2005;8(5):521–33.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Sylvestre Y. CONSORT: missing missing data, guidelines, the effects on HTA monograph reporting. Trials. 2011;12(Suppl 1):A61.CrossRefPubMedCentral
56.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(5):361–7.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1(4):368–76.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2002.
59.
Little RJA. Missing data adjustments in large surveys. J Bus Econ Stat. 1988;6(3):287–96.
60.
Sinharay S, Stern HS, Russell D. The use of multiple imputation for the analysis of missing data. Psychol Methods. 2001;6(4):317–29.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Marshall A, Altman DG, Holder RL, Royston P. Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Wayman J. Multiple imputation for missing data: what is it and how can I use it? Paper presented at the proceedings of the annual meeting of the American educational research association. Chicago; 2003.
63.
Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 1979;47(1):153–61.CrossRef
64.
Little R. Pattern-mixture models for multivariate incomplete data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88(421):125–34.
65.
Carpenter JR, Kenward MG, White IR. Sensitivity analysis after multiple imputation under missing at random: a weighting approach. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007;16(3):259–75.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Rubin DB, Stern HS, Vehovar V. Handling, “don’t know” survey responses: the case of the Slovenian plebiscite. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90:822–8.
67.
Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(2):147–77.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Shroufi A, Powles JW. Adherence and chemoprevention in major cardiovascular disease: a simulation study of the benefits of additional use of statins. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(2):109–13.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Kadambi A, Leipold RJ, Kansal AR, Sorensen S, Getsios D. Inclusion of compliance and persistence in economic models: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(6):365–79.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Hughes DA, Bagust A, Haycox A, Walley T. Accounting for noncompliance in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(12):1185–97.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Hughes D, Cowell W, Koncz T, Cramer J, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Economics of Medication Compliance Working Group. Methods for integrating medication compliance and persistence in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Value Health. 2007;10(6):498–509.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Fischer K, Goetghebeur E, Vrijens B, White IR. A structural mean model to allow for noncompliance in a randomized trial comparing 2 active treatments. Biostatistics. 2011;12(2):247–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
73.
Hughes DA, Walley T. Predicting, “real world” effectiveness by integrating adherence with pharmacodynamic modeling. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003;74(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Reed SD, Anstrom KJ, Bakhai A, Briggs AH, Califf RM, Cohen DJ, et al. Conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials: toward a research consensus. Am Heart J. 2005;149(3):434–43.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(49):iii–iv, 1–192.
76.
Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, Glick HA, Lis J, Malik F, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Goeree R. The analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data for reimbursement decisions: a critical appraisal of recent methodological developments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(12):1079–96.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Keeling MJ, Rohani P. Modeling infectious diseases in humans and animals. 1st ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2007.
Metadaten
Titel
Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches
verfasst von
Dyfrig Hughes
Joanna Charles
Dalia Dawoud
Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
Emily Holmes
Carys Jones
Paul Parham
Catrin Plumpton
Colin Ridyard
Huw Lloyd-Williams
Eifiona Wood
Seow Tien Yeo
Publikationsdatum
01.05.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 5/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0371-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2016

PharmacoEconomics 5/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Review Article

Rivaroxaban for Preventing Atherothrombotic Events in People with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Elevated Cardiac Biomarkers: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Oral Therapies for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Modelling Study

Practical Application

Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment

Systematic Review

Economic Burden and Quality-of-Life Effects of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Commentary

Pharmaceutical Price Schemes in Europe: Time for a ‘Continental’ One?

Current Opinion

Assessing the Value of New Treatments for Hepatitis C: Are International Decision Makers Getting this Right?