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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanghera, Sabina, Frew, Emma, Gupta, Janesh Kumar, Kai, Joe, Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth
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