Literature DB >> 10155600

Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant. A willingness-to-pay approach.

B J O'Brien1, S Novosel, G Torrance, D Streiner.   

Abstract

Using the method of willingness to pay (WTP), this study assesses the value of a new antidepressant, moclobemide, relative to that of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), which have equivalent efficacy but less favourable adverse effect profiles. From a published meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials, we identified 7 adverse effects, the risk of which differed significantly between moclobemide and TCAs. We obtained risk reduction data and descriptions of adverse effects from interviews with 95 individuals who had mild to moderate depression and who had been taking one or more TCAs in the previous year. Using a visual analogue scale, respondents ranked and rated each adverse effect. Participants were then asked (using the scenario of additional out-of-pocket drug payment) to quantify the maximum amount that they would pay for a new drug that reduced each adverse effect by the specified probability. Blurred vision and tremor were ranked and rated as the most bothersome adverse effects, with dry mouth being the least bothersome. On average, respondents were willing to pay an additional $Can22 per month [95% confidence interval (CI) 16-28] to reduce the risk of blurred vision from 10 to 5%. The lowest WTP value was for reducing the risk of dry mouth from 40 to 15%, at $Can11 per month (95% CI 8-15). Although not measured directly, we derived 2 estimates of WTP for multiple (i.e. all 7) risk reductions. We obtained upper and lower WTP limits of $Can118 and $Can36 per month, respectively, depending upon aggregation assumptions. Compared with the TCAs amitriptyline and imipramine, the net cost of moclobemide is greater, but the overall net benefit (WTP minus cost) is ambiguous given uncertainty about WTP aggregation over adverse effects. However, compared with the TCAs desipramine and clomipramine, the net benefit of moclobemide is unambiguously positive. We conclude that the WTP approach is a potentially valuable tool that requires more development for use in healthcare economic evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 10155600     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199508010-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  19 in total

1.  Economic analysis in randomized control trials.

Authors:  M E Adams; N T McCall; D T Gray; M J Orza; T C Chalmers
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 2.  Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost-benefit analysis?

Authors:  M Johannesson; B Jönsson
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits. Relevant questions in the context of public decisionmaking about health care programs.

Authors:  A Gafni
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media. What do patients think it is worth?

Authors:  L J Appel; E P Steinberg; N R Powe; G F Anderson; S A Dwyer; R R Faden
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Some guidelines on the use of cost effectiveness league tables.

Authors:  J Mason; M Drummond; G Torrance
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-02-27

6.  Health care CBA/CEA: an update on the growth and composition of the literature.

Authors:  A Elixhauser; B R Luce; W R Taylor; J Reblando
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Efficacy of a reversible monoamine oxidase-A inhibitor versus imipramine in subgroups of depressed patients.

Authors:  K Bizière; M Berger
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl       Date:  1990

8.  Moclobemide, imipramine and placebo in the treatment of major depression.

Authors:  M Versiani; A E Nardi; F D Mundim; A Alves; W Schmid-Burgk
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl       Date:  1990

9.  Double-blind comparison of moclobemide, imipramine and placebo in depressive patients.

Authors:  R Ucha Udabe; C A Márquez; C A Traballi; N Portes
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl       Date:  1990

10.  What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy.

Authors:  D M Berwick; M C Weinstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events.

Authors:  T J White; A Arakelian; J P Rho
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Willingness to pay as a measure of health benefits.

Authors:  M V Bala; J A Mauskopf; L L Wood
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The cost-benefit of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild to moderate dementia: a willingness-to-pay approach.

Authors:  Grace Wu; Krista L Lanctôt; Nathan Herrmann; Shehnaz Moosa; Paul I Oh
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.749

Review 4.  A 'league table' of contingent valuation results for pharmaceutical interventions: a hard pill to swallow?

Authors:  Tracey H Sach; Richard D Smith; David K Whynes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Constraints on antidepressant prescribing and principles of cost-effective antidepressant use. Part 1: Depression and its treatment.

Authors:  J A Henry; C A Rivas
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Valuing health in a racially and ethnically diverse community sample: an analysis using the valuation metrics of money and time.

Authors:  Norah E Mulvaney-Day; Marcela Horvitz-Lennon; Chih-Nan Chen; Mara Laderman; Margarita Alegría
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Economic evaluation of insulin lispro versus neutral (regular) insulin therapy using a willingness-to-pay approach.

Authors:  P Davey; D Grainger; J MacMillan; N Rajan; M Aristides; M Dobson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Conjoint analysis of a new Chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Mike Aristides; Jack Chen; Mark Schulz; Eve Williamson; Stephen Clarke; Kaye Grant
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cost-benefit analysis of first-generation antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Authors:  Patrick W Sullivan; Sheryl L Follin; Michael B Nichol
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Consumer preference for dinoprostone vaginal gel using stated preference discrete choice modelling.

Authors:  Susan Taylor; Carol Armour
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.