IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i1p29-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validating Literature-based Models with Direct Clinical Trial Results

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth A. Freedberg
  • W. David Hardy
  • Robert S. Holzman
  • Anna N.A. Tosteson
  • Donald E. Craven

Abstract

Objective. To compare literature-based estimates of the cost-effectiveness ratios of strat egies for secondary prophylaxis of Pneumocystis cannit pneumonia (PCP) In AIDS patients with estimates obtained using data from a recent comparative clinical trial Design. A decision- analytic Markov model with data on drug efficacy and toxicity from both the medical literature and a national randomized clinical trial. Drug costs were from average wholesale prices. Discounted life expectancy, total direct medical costs, and cost-effectiveness were projected in dollars per year of life saved (YLS). Setting. Hypothetical for the literature-based model, then the clinical trial results from the multicenter AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG Protocol 021). Patient population. Patients with AIDS and a pnor episode of PCP Interventions. Strategies induded no prophylaxis, TMP-SMX (160/800 mg) daily, or aerosolized pentam idine (300 mg) monthly. Patients experiencing major toxic reactions to either medication would cross over to the other agent. Main results In the literature-based model no prophylaxis was associated with a projected life expectancy of 1.430 years, and total direct cost of $42,080. TMP-SMX increased life expectancy to 2.051 years and cost to $42,300; for aero solized pentamidine life expectancy was 2.066 years and cost $43,960. TMP-SMX had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $350 per YLS compared with no prophylaxis; the incremental ratio for aerosolized pentamidine was $2,950 per YLS when compared with no prophylaxis, but rose to $110,880 per YLS compared with TMP-SMX. When data from ACTG clinical trial 021 were utilized in the model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TMP- SMX compared with no prophylaxis was $720 per YLS, aerosolized pentamidine was not cost-effective, and was "dominated" by TMP-SMX because it was associated with higher costs and shorter life expectancy. Conclusions. Literature-based cost-effectneness models are useful in developing health policy before clinical trials are completed. Clinical trial results, when available, can be used to validate and revise these models. For secondary PCP prophylaxis in AIDS patients, TMP-SMX is substantially more cost-effective than aerosolized pentamidine. Key words: decision models; cost-effectiveness; Pneumocystis carmu pneu monia. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:29-35)

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth A. Freedberg & W. David Hardy & Robert S. Holzman & Anna N.A. Tosteson & Donald E. Craven, 1996. "Validating Literature-based Models with Direct Clinical Trial Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 29-35, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:1:p:29-35
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600110
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600110?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Hornberger & Mark Holodniy & Katherine Robertus & Michael Winnike & Erin Gibson & Eric Verhulst, 2007. "A Systematic Review of Cost-Utility Analyses in HIV/AIDS: Implications for Public Policy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(6), pages 789-821, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:1:p:29-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.