Literature DB >> 17497751

An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost-effectiveness analysis.

A Gafni1, S D Walter, S Birch, P Sendi.   

Abstract

The inclusion of economic evaluations as part of clinical trials has led to concerns about the adequacy of trial sample size to support such analysis. The analytical tool of cost-effectiveness analysis is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is compared with a threshold value (lambda) as a method to determine the efficiency of a health-care intervention. Accordingly, many of the methods suggested to calculating the sample size requirements for the economic component of clinical trials are based on the properties of the ICER. However, use of the ICER and a threshold value as a basis for determining efficiency has been shown to be inconsistent with the economic concept of opportunity cost. As a result, the validity of the ICER-based approaches to sample size calculations can be challenged. Alternative methods for determining improvements in efficiency have been presented in the literature that does not depend upon ICER values. In this paper, we develop an opportunity cost approach to calculating sample size for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, and illustrate the approach using a numerical example. We compare the sample size requirement of the opportunity cost method with the ICER threshold method. In general, either method may yield the larger required sample size. However, the opportunity cost approach, although simple to use, has additional data requirements. We believe that the additional data requirements represent a small price to pay for being able to perform an analysis consistent with both concept of opportunity cost and the problem faced by decision makers. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17497751     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1244

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  6 in total

1.  Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 1).

Authors:  Henry A Glick
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting.

Authors:  Stavros Petrou; Alastair Gray
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-04-07

3.  Trial-based economic evaluations in occupational health: principles, methods, and recommendations.

Authors:  Johanna M van Dongen; Marieke F van Wier; Emile Tompa; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.162

4.  The Cost Implications of Less Tight Versus Tight Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy (CHIPS Trial).

Authors:  Rashid J Ahmed; Amiram Gafni; Eileen K Hutton; Zheng Jing Hu; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Peter von Dadelszen; Evelyne Rey; Susan Ross; Elizabeth Asztalos; Kellie E Murphy; Jennifer Menzies; J Johanna Sanchez; Wessel Ganzevoort; Michael Helewa; Shoo K Lee; Terry Lee; Alexander G Logan; Jean-Marie Moutquin; Joel Singer; Jim G Thornton; Ross Welch; Laura A Magee
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 10.190

5.  Bayesian sample size determination for cost-effectiveness studies with censored data.

Authors:  Daniel P Beavers; James D Stamey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Cost-benefit and extended cost-effectiveness analysis of a comprehensive adolescent pregnancy prevention program in Zambia: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Amani Thomas Mori; Linda Kampata; Patrick Musonda; Kjell Arne Johansson; Bjarne Robberstad; Ingvild Sandøy
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.