Power Analysis for Two-Level Multisite Randomized Cost-Effectiveness Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 690-718
Author(s):  
Wei Li ◽  
Nianbo Dong ◽  
Rebecca A. Maynard

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a widely used educational evaluation tool. The randomized controlled trials that aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment are commonly referred to as randomized cost-effectiveness trials (RCETs). This study provides methods of power analysis for two-level multisite RCETs. Power computations take account of sample sizes, the effect size, covariates effects, nesting effects for both cost and effectiveness measures, the ratio of the total variance of the cost measure to the total variance of effectiveness measure, and correlations between cost and effectiveness measures at each level. Illustrative examples that show how power is influenced by the sample sizes, nesting effects, covariate effects, and correlations between cost and effectiveness measures are presented. We also demonstrate how the calculations can be applied in the design phase of two-level multisite RCETs using the software PowerUp!-CEA (Version 1.0).

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 513-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md. Abu Manju ◽  
Math JJM Candel ◽  
Martijn PF Berger

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 448-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Ginnelly ◽  
Mark Sculpher ◽  
Chris Bojke ◽  
Ian Roberts ◽  
Angie Wade ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danique LM Radder ◽  
Herma H Lennaerts ◽  
Hester Vermeulen ◽  
Thies van Asseldonk ◽  
Cathérine CS Delnooz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend that every person with Parkinson’s disease (PD) should have access to Parkinson’s Disease Nurse Specialist (PDNS) care. However, there is little scientific evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PDNS care. This hampers wider implementation, creates unequal access to care and possibly leads to avoidable disability and costs. Therefore, we aim to study the (cost-)effectiveness of specialized nursing care provided by a PDNS compared to usual care (without PDNS) for people with PD in all disease stages. To gain more insight into the deployed interventions and their effects, a pre-planned subgroup analysis will be performed based on disease duration (diagnosis <5, 5-10, or >10 years ago). Methods We will perform an 18-month, single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial in eight community hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 240 people with PD that have not been treated by a PDNS over the past two years will be included, independent of disease severity or duration. In each hospital, 30 patients will randomly be allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either care by a PDNS (who works according to a recent guideline on PDNS care) or usual care. We will use two co-primary outcomes: quality of life (measured with the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39) and motor symptoms (measured with the MDS-UPDRS part III). Secondary outcomes include non-motor symptoms, health-related quality of life, experienced quality of care, self-management, medication adherence, caregiver burden and coping skills. Data will be collected after 12 months and 18 months by a blinded researcher. A healthcare utilization and productivity loss questionnaire will be completed every 3 months. Discussion The results of this trial will have an immediate impact on the current care of people with PD. We hypothesize that, by offering more patients access to PDNS care, quality of life will increase. We also expect healthcare costs to remain equal, as increases in direct medical costs (funding additional nurses) will be offset by a reduced number of consultations with the general practitioner and neurologist. If these outcomes are reached, wide implementation of PDNS care is warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03830190. Registered February 5, 2019 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03830190.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 439-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shoko Maru ◽  
Joshua Byrnes ◽  
Melinda J Carrington ◽  
Yih-Kai Chan ◽  
Simon Stewart ◽  
...  

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a long-term, nurse-led, multidisciplinary programme of home/clinic visits in preventing progressive cardiac dysfunction in patients at risk of developing de novo chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: A trial-based analysis was conducted alongside a pragmatic, single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled trial of 611 patients (mean age: 66 years) with subclinical cardiovascular diseases (without CHF) discharged to home from an Australian tertiary referral hospital. A nurse-led home and clinic-based programme (NIL-CHF intervention, n = 301) was compared with standard care ( n=310) in terms of life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs. The uncertainty around the incremental cost and QALYs was quantified by bootstrap simulations and displayed on a cost-effectiveness plane. Results: During a median follow-up of 4.2 years, there were no significant between-group differences in life-years (−0.056, p=0.488) and QALYs (−0.072, p=0.399), which were lower in the NIL-CHF group. The NIL-CHF group had slightly lower all-cause hospitalization costs (AUD$2943 per person; p=0.219), cardiovascular-related hospitalization costs (AUD$1142; p=0.592) and a more pronounced reduction in emergency/unplanned hospitalization costs (AUD$4194 per person; p=0.024). When the cost of intervention was added to all-cause, cardiovascular and emergency-related readmissions, the reductions in the NIL-CHF group were AUD$2742 ( p=0.313), AUD$941 ( p=0.719) and AUD$3993 ( p=0.046), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD$50,000/QALY, the probability of the NIL-CHF intervention being better-valued was 19%. Conclusions: Compared with standard care, the NIL-CHF intervention was not a cost-effective strategy as life-years and QALYs were slightly lower in the NIL-CHF group. However, it was associated with modest reductions in emergency/unplanned readmission costs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document