Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:15:42.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-utility in CNS drug trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

F Ziegler
F Ziegler*
Affiliation:
Glaxo Wellcome, 68 Nykaer, DK-2605yBroendb, Denmark
Get access

Summary

This paper considers some of the theoretical and practical problems of conducting cost-utility analyses alongside clinical trials. In order to measure utilities of different health states in a clinical trial a number of critical assumptions have to be made. Some of these assumptions are questionable on a theoretical level, others empirically invalid. The practical problems of measuring utilities are discussed. The standard gamble is shown to be the most validated method of utility measurement, but still based on very strong assumptions. The standard gamble instrument is also costly and difficult to administer in clinical trials. Other instruments are found to be less valid than the standard gamble. It is concluded that although cost-utility analysis seems relevant in some instances, investigators should avoid this assessment of utility and instead measure cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and quality of life.

Keywords

cost-utility analysiseconomic evaluationCNS
Type
Research Article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 11 , Issue 3: Issues of Concern in the Standardization and Harmonization of Psychotropic Drug Trials in Europe , 1996 , pp. 159 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Drummond, MFOutput measurement for resource allocation decisions in health care. Oxford Rev Econ Pol 1991; 5: 59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, MF, Stoddart, GL, Torrance, GWMethods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987Google Scholar
Drummond, M, Brandt, A, Luce, B, Rovira, JStandardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Intl J Techn Ass Health Care 1993 9(1) 26–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feeny, DH, Torrance, GWIncorporating utility-based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials. Med Care 1989; 27: S190S204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feeny, DH, Furlong, W, Boyle, M, Torrance, GWMulti-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmaco Economics 1995; 7: 490–502CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, M, Savage, LJThe utility of choices involving risk. J Polit Econ 1948; 56: 279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, DM, McPherson, MSTaking ethics seriously: economics and contemporary moral philosophy. J Econ Lit 1993; 31: 617–731Google Scholar
Hershey, JC, Kunreuther, HC, Schoemaker, PJHSources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Sci 1982; 8: 936–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, JC, Redelmeier, DA, Peterson, JVariability among methods to assess patients well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 505–512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannesson, M, Pliskin, JS, Weinstein, MCAre healthy-years equivalents an improvement over quality-adjusted life years?. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 281–286CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, JN, Phillips, CB, Fossel, AH, Liang, MHStability and responsiveness of utility Measures. Med Care 1994; 2: 183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G, McKenzie, LThe use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 299–308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeil, BJ, Weichselbaum, R, Pauker, SGSpeech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. NEngl J Med 1981; 305: 982–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, BJ, Oauker, SG, Sox, HC, Tversky, AOn the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1259–1262CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehrez, A, Gafni, AQuality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989; 9: 142–149CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehrez, A, Gafni, AEvaluating health related quality-of-life: an indifference curve interpretation for the time trade-off technique. Soc Sci Med 1990; 31: 1281–1283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehrez, A, Gafni, AThe healthy-years equivalents: how to measure them using the standard gamble approach. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 140–146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehrez, A, Gafni, AHealthy-years equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: in pursuit of progress. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 287–292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyamoto, JM, Eraker, SAParameter estimates for a QALY utility model. Med Decis Making 1985; 5: 191–213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Neumann, J, Morgenstern, OTheory of Games and Economic Behaviour 3rd ed.Oxford: Wiley, 1953Google Scholar
Nord, EToward quality assurance in QALY calulations. Intl J Techn Ass Health Care 1993; 9(1): 37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pliskin, JS, Shepard, DS, Weinstein, MCUtility functions for life years and health states. Oper Res 1980; 28(1): 206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, JL, Quinn, RJ, Berwick, DM, Fineberg, HV, Weinstein, MCPreferences for health outcomes — comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 3: 315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, RCost-utility analysis. Brit Med J 1993; 307: 859–862CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, DL, Torrance, GWThe utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chron Dis 1978; 31: 697–704CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoemaker, PJHThe expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit 1982; 20: 529–563Google Scholar
Sutherland, HJ, Dunn, V, Boyd, NFMeasurement of values for states of health with linear analog scales. Med Decis Making 1983; 4: 477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, GWSocial preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 1976; 10: 129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, GWMeasurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal — a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, GW, Boyle, MH, Horwood, SPApplication of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 1982; 30: 1043–1069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrance, GW, Feeny, DUtilities and quality-adjusted life years. Intl J Techn Ass Health Care 1989; 5: 559–575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrance, GW, Furlong, W, Feeny, D, Boyle, MMulti-attribute preference functions. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 503–520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A, Kahneman, DThe framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453–458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, MC, Stason, WBFoundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296(13): 716–721CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.