Cost effectiveness

About: Cost effectiveness is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 69775 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1531477 citations.

Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology

Abstract: ContextRecent studies have found that when investigators have financial relationships with pharmaceutical or product manufacturers, they are less likely to criticize the safety or efficacy of these agents. The effects of health economics research on pharmaceutical company revenue make drug investigations potentially vulnerable to this bias.ObjectiveTo determine whether there is an association between pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and economic assessment of oncology drugs.DesignMEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases (1988-1998) were searched for original English-language research articles of cost or cost-effectiveness analyses of 6 oncology drugs in 3 new drug categories (hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors, serotonin antagonist antiemetics, and taxanes), yielding 44 eligible articles. Two investigators independently abstracted each article based on specific criteria.Main Outcome MeasureRelationships between funding source and (1) qualitative cost assessment (favorable, neutral, or unfavorable) and (2) qualitative conclusions that overstated quantitative results.ResultsPharmaceutical company–sponsored studies were less likely than nonprofit-sponsored studies to report unfavorable qualitative conclusions (1/20 [5%] vs 9/24 [38%]; P=.04), whereas overstatements of quantitative results were not significantly different in pharmaceutical company–sponsored (6/20 [30%]) vs nonprofit-sponsored (3/24 [13%]) studies (P=.26).ConclusionsAlthough we did not identify bias in individual studies, these findings indicate that pharmaceutical company sponsorship of economic analyses is associated with reduced likelihood of reporting unfavorable results.

Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment: A Review and Consolidation of Quality Assessment

Abstract: The use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA) has increased dramatically in recent years. Several guidelines for best practice have emerged in the literature; however, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a 'good model' or how models should be formally assessed. The objective of this paper is to identify, review and consolidate existing guidelines on the use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of HTA and to develop a consistent framework against which the quality of models may be assessed. The review and resultant framework are summarised under the three key themes of Structure, Data and Consistency. 'Structural' aspects relate to the scope and mathematical structure of the model including the strategies under evaluation. Issues covered under the general heading of 'Data' include data identification methods and how uncertainty should be addressed. 'Consistency' relates to the overall quality of the model. The review of existing guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, such as the need for transparency, they are contradictory in other areas. Particular areas of disagreement are how data should be incorporated into models and how uncertainty should be assessed. For the purpose of evaluation, the resultant framework is applied to a decision-analytic model developed as part of an appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. As a further assessment, the review based on the framework is compared with an assessment provided by an independent experienced modeller not using the framework. It is hoped that the framework developed here may form part of the appraisals process for assessment bodies such as NICE and decision models submitted to peer review journals. However, given the speed with which decision-modelling methodology advances, there is a need for its continual update.

Large group community-based parenting programs for families of preschoolers at risk for disruptive behaviour disorders: utilization, cost effectiveness, and outcome.

Abstract: A significant percentage of children with disruptive behavior disorders do not receive mental health assistance. Utilization is lowest among groups whose children are at greatest risk. To increase the availability, accessibility, and cost efficacy of parent training programs, this prospective randomized trial compared a large group community-based parent training program to a clinic-based individual parent training (PT) programs. All families of junior kindergartners in the Hamilton public and separate school boards were sent a checklist regarding problems at home. Those returning questionnaires above the 90th percentile were block randomly assigned to: (1) a 12-week clinic-based individual parent training (Clinic/Individual), (2) a 12-week community-based large group parent training (Community/Group), or (3) a waiting list control condition. Immigrant families, those using English as a second language, and parents of children with severe behaviour problems were significantly more likely to enroll in Community/Groups than Clinic/Individual PT. Parents in Community/Groups reported greater improvements in behaviour problems at home and better maintenance of these gains at 6-month follow-up. A cost analysis showed that, with groups of 18 families, Community/Groups are more than six times as cost effective as Clinic/Individual programs.

Inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Abstract: Objective To assess the effects of inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients compared with usual care on functional status, admissions to nursing homes, and mortality. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, and reference lists from published literature. Review methods Only randomised controlled trials were included. Trials had to report on inpatient rehabilitation and report at least one of functional improvement, admission to nursing homes, or mortality. Trials of consultation or outpatient services, trials including patients aged <55, trials of non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation, and trials without a control group receiving usual care were excluded. Data were double extracted. Odds ratios and relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results 17 trials with 4780 people comparing the effects of general or orthopaedic geriatric rehabilitation programmes with usual care were included. Meta-analyses of effects indicated an overall benefit in outcomes at discharge (odds ratio 1.75 (95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.35) for function, relative risk 0.64 (0.51 to 0.81) for nursing home admission, relative risk 0.72 (0.55 to 0.95) for mortality) and at end of follow-up (1.36 (1.07 to 1.71), 0.84 (0.72 to 0.99), 0.87 (0.77 to 0.97), respectively). Limited data were available on impact on health care or cost. Compared with those in control groups, weighted mean length of hospital stay after randomisation was longer in patients allocated to general geriatric rehabilitation (24.5 v 15.1 days) and shorter in patients allocated to orthopaedic rehabilitation (24.6 v 28.9 days). Conclusion Inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients has the potential to improve outcomes related to function, admission to nursing homes, and mortality. Insufficient data are available for defining characteristics and cost effectiveness of successful programmes.