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

被引:11
作者
Gafni, A. [1 ,2 ]
Walter, S. D. [1 ]
Birch, S. [1 ,2 ]
Sendi, P. [3 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Ctr Hlth Econ & Policy Anal, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[3] Univ Basel Hosp, Inst Clin Epidemiol, Div Hlth Econ, Basel, Switzerland
关键词
cost-effectiveness analysis; sample size calculations; decision rules;
D O I
10.1002/hec.1244
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
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 (),) 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.
引用
收藏
页码:99 / 107
页数:9
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
Al MJ, 1998, HEALTH ECON, V7, P327, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199806)7:4<327::AID-HEC342>3.0.CO
[2]  
2-U
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2004, What could be nicer than NICE?
[4]   APPLICATIONS OF COST-BENEFIT-ANALYSIS TO HEALTH-CARE - DEPARTURES FROM WELFARE ECONOMIC-THEORY [J].
BIRCH, S ;
DONALDSON, C .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 1987, 6 (03) :211-225
[5]   COST-EFFECTIVENESS UTILITY ANALYSES - DO CURRENT DECISION RULES LEAD US TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE [J].
BIRCH, S ;
GAFNI, A .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 1992, 11 (03) :279-296
[6]   CHANGING THE PROBLEM TO FIT THE SOLUTION - JOHANNESSON AND WEINSTEIN (MIS) APPLICATION OF ECONOMICS TO REAL-WORLD PROBLEMS [J].
BIRCH, S ;
GAFNI, A .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 1993, 12 (04) :469-476
[7]   Power and sample size calculations for stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Briggs, AH ;
Gray, AM .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (02) :S81-S92
[8]   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
[9]  
COOK RJ, 1999, ENCY BIOSTATISTICS, P2736
[10]   Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? [J].
Cookson, R ;
McDaid, D ;
Maynard, A .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7315) :743-745