Literature DB >> 19509121

The cost-effectiveness of an RCT to establish whether 5 or 10 years of bisphosphonate treatment is the better duration for women with a prior fracture.

Matt D Stevenson1, Jeremy E Oakley, Myfawny Lloyd Jones, Alan Brennan, Juliet E Compston, Eugene V McCloskey, Peter L Selby.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Five years of bisphosphonate treatment have proven efficacy in reducing fractures. Concerns exist that long-term bisphosphonate treatment may actually result in an increased number of fractures. This study evaluates, in the context of England and Wales, whether it is cost-effective to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and what sample size may be optimal to estimate the efficacy of bisphosphonates in fracture prevention beyond 5 years.
METHOD: An osteoporosis model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extending bisphosphonate treatment from 5 years to 10 years. Two scenarios were run. The 1st uses long-term efficacy data from published literature, and the 2nd uses distributions elicited from clinical experts.
RESULTS: of a proposed RCT were simulated. The expected value of sample information technique was applied to calculate the expected net benefit of sampling from conducting such an RCT at varying levels of participants per arm and to compare this with proposed trial costs. Results. Without further information, the better duration of bisphosphonate treatment was estimated to be 5 years using the published data but 10 years using the elicited expert opinions, although in both cases uncertainty was substantial. The net benefit of sampling was consistently high when between 2000 and 5000 participants per arm were recruited.
CONCLUSIONS: An RCT to evaluate the long-term efficacy of bisphosphonates in fracture prevention appears to be cost-effective for informing decision making in England and Wales.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19509121     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09336077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  6 in total

Review 1.  Methods to elicit probability distributions from experts: a systematic review of reported practice in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Bogdan Grigore; Jaime Peters; Christopher Hyde; Ken Stein
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice.

Authors:  Lotte Steuten; Gijs van de Wetering; Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Valesca Retèl
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Modelling the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis: issues to consider.

Authors:  Matt D Stevenson; Peter L Selby
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Christopher J Cadham; Marie Knoll; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; K Michael Cummings; Clifford E Douglas; Alex Liber; David Mendez; Rafael Meza; Ritesh Mistry; Aylin Sertkaya; Nargiz Travis; David T Levy
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 2.749

Review 5.  Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Laura Bojke; Marta Soares; Karl Claxton; Abigail Colson; Aimée Fox; Christopher Jackson; Dina Jankovic; Alec Morton; Linda Sharples; Andrea Taylor
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 6.  Experiences of Structured Elicitation for Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

Authors:  Marta O Soares; Linda Sharples; Alec Morton; Karl Claxton; Laura Bojke
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 5.725

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.