Cargando…
Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia
BACKGROUND: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual blee...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4559088/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25911537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0 |
_version_ | 1782388719718760448 |
---|---|
author | Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth |
author_facet | Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth |
author_sort | Sanghera, Sabina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. OBJECTIVE: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. RESULTS: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. CONCLUSION: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4559088 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45590882015-09-09 Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth Pharmacoeconomics Original Research Article BACKGROUND: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. OBJECTIVE: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. RESULTS: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. CONCLUSION: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2015-04-25 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4559088/ /pubmed/25911537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia |
title | Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia |
title_full | Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia |
title_fullStr | Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia |
title_full_unstemmed | Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia |
title_short | Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia |
title_sort | exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4559088/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25911537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sangherasabina exploringtheuseofcostbenefitanalysistocomparepharmaceuticaltreatmentsformenorrhagia AT frewemma exploringtheuseofcostbenefitanalysistocomparepharmaceuticaltreatmentsformenorrhagia AT guptajaneshkumar exploringtheuseofcostbenefitanalysistocomparepharmaceuticaltreatmentsformenorrhagia AT kaijoe exploringtheuseofcostbenefitanalysistocomparepharmaceuticaltreatmentsformenorrhagia AT robertstracyelizabeth exploringtheuseofcostbenefitanalysistocomparepharmaceuticaltreatmentsformenorrhagia |