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
Janesh Kumar Gupta
Professor JOE KAI firstname.lastname@example.org
Professor of Primary Care
Tracy Elizabeth Roberts
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.
Sanghera, S., Frew, E., Gupta, J. K., Kai, J., & Roberts, T. E. (2015). Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. PharmacoEconomics, 33(9), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0
|Journal Article Type||Article|
|Acceptance Date||Apr 1, 2015|
|Online Publication Date||Apr 25, 2015|
|Publication Date||Sep 1, 2015|
|Deposit Date||Oct 27, 2017|
|Publicly Available Date||Oct 27, 2017|
|Peer Reviewed||Peer Reviewed|
|Keywords||Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pharmaceutical Treatments;
Menorrhagia; Primary Care.
|Related Public URLs||http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/|
|Copyright Statement||Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0|
Sanghera PharmacoEcon 2015.pdf
Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
You might also like
Defining Coordinated Care for People with Rare Conditions: A Scoping Review