D Torgerson1, C Donaldson, D Reid. 1. National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of economics, in combination with clinical judgement, for setting research priorities, using osteoporosis prevention (and, as a result, hip fracture prevention) as an example. METHODS: Modelling the cost and effectiveness of each of six potential interventions to prevent hip fractures over the 5-year length of a randomized trial (vitamin D injection; thiazide diuretics; hormone replacement therapy; oral calcium and vitamin D; calcium alone; calcitonin). Drug costs were derived from the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties (MIMS); averted fracture costs and estimates of effectiveness were derived from published sources. RESULTS:Vitamin D injection proved to be the most potentially cost-effective treatment with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 584 Pounds. If averted costs are included, this leads to a saving of 9,176,496 Pounds per 100,000 women treated. By contrast, the most expensive therapy was calcitonin (marginal cost-effectiveness ratio of 433,548 Pounds). This suggests that priority should be given to trials assessing the effectiveness of vitamin D injections. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively simple economic modelling exercises can inform research priorities and could help optimize the use of scarce research resources.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of economics, in combination with clinical judgement, for setting research priorities, using osteoporosis prevention (and, as a result, hip fracture prevention) as an example. METHODS: Modelling the cost and effectiveness of each of six potential interventions to prevent hip fractures over the 5-year length of a randomized trial (vitamin D injection; thiazide diuretics; hormone replacement therapy; oral calcium and vitamin D; calcium alone; calcitonin). Drug costs were derived from the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties (MIMS); averted fracture costs and estimates of effectiveness were derived from published sources. RESULTS:Vitamin D injection proved to be the most potentially cost-effective treatment with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 584 Pounds. If averted costs are included, this leads to a saving of 9,176,496 Pounds per 100,000 women treated. By contrast, the most expensive therapy was calcitonin (marginal cost-effectiveness ratio of 433,548 Pounds). This suggests that priority should be given to trials assessing the effectiveness of vitamin D injections. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively simple economic modelling exercises can inform research priorities and could help optimize the use of scarce research resources.
Authors: Deborah A Levine; Kenneth G Saag; Linda L Casebeer; Cathleen Colon-Emeric; Kenneth W Lyles; Richard M Shewchuk Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2006-07-17 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Abdelghani El Ayoubi; Kevin Parfait Bienvenu Bouhelo; Hachem Chafik; Mohammed Nasri; Mohammed El Idrissi; Mohammed Shimi; Abdelhalim El Ibrahimi; Abdelmajid Elmrini Journal: Pan Afr Med J Date: 2017-06-20