Power and sample size for cost-effectiveness analysis: fFN neonatal screening

被引:16
作者
Boyd, Kathleen A. [1 ]
Briggs, Andrew H.
Fenwick, Elisabeth
Norrie, John
Stock, Sarah [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Glasgow, Ctr Populat Hlth Sci, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Lanark, Scotland
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Study design; Sample size; Cost-effectiveness; Net monetary benefit; Non-inferiority; CLINICAL-TRIALS; STATISTICAL LIFE; HEALTH; POLICY;
D O I
10.1016/j.cct.2011.07.007
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involve cost-effectiveness evaluations rarely use health economic input when undertaking sample size calculations for the trial design: however, in studies undertaken with cost-effectiveness as the primary outcome, sample size calculations should be directly related to the cost-effectiveness result rather than to the effectiveness outcome alone. This paper reports on a case in which a clinical trial design sample size and power calculations were determined with regard to cost-effectiveness using the net monetary benefit (NMB) approach to demonstrate the feasibility of sample size calculation for cost-effectiveness in a real life setting. The proposed RCT of fetal fibronectin screening (fFN) for women with threatened pre-term labour is discussed, followed by the design of a preliminary model to inform the trial design calculation. The predictions from this pre-trial indicate potential cost-savings, but with a marginal detrimental impact on the effectiveness endpoint, neonatal morbidity. The NMB approach for cost-effectiveness is discussed and used to calculate the required sample sizes for different powers. The sample size calculations are then recalculated using a non-inferiority margin, to ensure that the NMB sample size for the trial was also sufficient to demonstrate non-inferiority for the effectiveness endpoint. Finally, a probabilistic analysis explored uncertainty in the model parameters and the impact on sample size. Considerations of economic assessments alongside clinical trials can and should be used to guide conventional trial design. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of such calculations, whilst simultaneously highlighting limitations and demonstrating the role for economic considerations to guide non-inferiority margins. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:893 / 901
页数:9
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   The value of life and health for public policy [J].
Abelson, P .
ECONOMIC RECORD, 2003, 79 :S2-S13
[2]   Neonatal Morbidity in Moderately Preterm Infants: A Swedish National Population-Based Study [J].
Altman, Maria ;
Vanpee, Mireille ;
Cnattingius, Sven ;
Norman, Mikael .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2011, 158 (02) :239-U86
[3]  
[Anonymous], SCOTT PER INF MORB M
[4]  
[Anonymous], PERINATAL COLLABORAT
[5]  
[Anonymous], AUDIT CARE OUTCOMES
[6]  
ARMITAGE P, 2002, ANAL MEANS PROPORTIO, pCH4
[7]   Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters - The need for greater power in cost analyses poses an ethical dilemma [J].
Briggs, A .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7273) :1362-1363
[8]   Power and sample size calculations for stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Briggs, AH ;
Gray, AM .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (02) :S81-S92
[9]   Thinking outside the box: Recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies [J].
Briggs, AH ;
O'Brien, BJ ;
Blackhouse, G .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2002, 23 :377-401
[10]  
BRIGGS AH, 1998, WORKING PAPER SERIES, P234