Cost categories impact cost-effectiveness evaluations

2018 ◽  
Vol 797 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-10
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 100129
Author(s):  
Nick Scott ◽  
Thin Mar Win ◽  
Tom Tidhar ◽  
Hla Htay ◽  
Bridget Draper ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e85197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Bassett ◽  
Darshini Govindasamy ◽  
Alison S. Erlwanger ◽  
Emily P. Hyle ◽  
Katharina Kranzer ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.M. Carozzi ◽  
M.P. Cariaggi ◽  
L. Bonardi ◽  
P. Bulgaresi ◽  
S. Cecchini ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1353-1356 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Tcherveniakov ◽  
J. De Siqueira ◽  
R. Milton ◽  
K. Papagiannopoulos

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e0230359
Author(s):  
Didik Setiawan ◽  
Andrijono ◽  
Sri Rezeki Hadinegoro ◽  
Hashta Meyta ◽  
R. Vensya Sitohang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110050
Author(s):  
Matthew C Cheung ◽  
Kelvin KW Chan ◽  
Shane Golden ◽  
Annette Hay ◽  
Joseph Pater ◽  
...  

Background Cost-effectiveness analyses embedded within randomized trials allow for evaluation of value alongside conventional efficacy outcomes; however, collection of resource utilization data can require considerable trial resources. Methods We re-analyzed the results from four phase III Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials that embedded cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the impact of minimizing potential cost categories on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. For each trial, we disaggregated total costs into component incremental cost categories and recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using (1) only the top 3 cost categories, (2) the top 5 cost categories, and (3) all cost components. Using individual trial-level data, confidence intervals for each incremental cost-effectiveness ratio simulation were generated by bootstrapping and descriptively presented with the original confidence intervals (and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) from the publications. Results Drug acquisition costs represented the highest incremental cost category in three trials, while hospitalization costs represented the other consistent cost driver and the top incremental cost category in the fourth trial. Recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on fewer cost components (top 3 and top 5) did not differ meaningfully from the original published results. Based on conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$50,000–US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year), none of the re-analyses would have changed the original perception of whether the experimental therapies were considered cost-effective. Conclusions These results suggest that the collection of resource utilization data within cancer trials could be narrowed. Omission of certain cost categories that have minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, such as routine laboratory investigations, could reduce the costs and undue burden associated with the collection of data required for cancer trial cost-effectiveness analyses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document