IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i1p43-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost Effectiveness of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Establish the Relative Efficacy of Vitamin K1 Compared with Alendronate

Author

Listed:
  • Matt D. Stevenson
  • Myfanwy Lloyd Jones

Abstract

Purpose. The authors aimed to evaluate whether vitamin K 1 or alendronate (the recommended treatment in England and Wales for postmenopausal women with a previous fracture) appeared to be the more cost-effective treatment for fracture prevention. Furthermore, expected value of sample information (EVSI) analyses were undertaken to estimate whether a head-to-head trial of alendronate and vitamin K 1 would be considered cost effective. Method. A published osteoporosis model structure, populated with data from literature reviews, was used to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with each intervention being provided to women at high risk of fracture, given current information. A lifetime horizon and a national health service and personal social services cost perspective were used. Observed outcomes from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of predetermined sizes were simulated and synthesized with existing data to formulate posterior distributions, which were used to estimate the more cost-effective treatment given these additional data. The EVSI was estimated and the expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS) calculated by subtracting the proposed trial costs. Results. Given current information, vitamin K 1 is expected to dominate alendronate. However, this was subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty; dominance was reversed when it was assumed that vitamin K 1 had no effect on hip fractures. EVSI analysis indicated that an RCT of 2000 or 5000 women per arm produced high, and comparable, ENBS. These results were maintained in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. It is concluded that an RCT recruiting between 2000 and 5000 women per arm to evaluate the relative efficacy of alendronate and vitamin K 1 appears to be cost effective for informing decision making in England and Wales.

Suggested Citation

  • Matt D. Stevenson & Myfanwy Lloyd Jones, 2011. "The Cost Effectiveness of a Randomized Controlled Trial to Establish the Relative Efficacy of Vitamin K1 Compared with Alendronate," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 43-52, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:43-52
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10364848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10364848
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10364848?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brennan, Alan & Kharroubi, Samer A., 2007. "Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 122-148, January.
    2. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    3. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    4. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    5. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    6. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    8. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    9. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    10. Gordon Hazen, 2011. "Cohort Decomposition for Markov Cost-Effectiveness Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 19-34, January.
    11. Samer A. Kharroubi & Alan Brennan & Mark Strong, 2011. "Estimating Expected Value of Sample Information for Incomplete Data Models Using Bayesian Approximation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 839-852, November.
    12. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    13. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    14. Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.
    15. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    16. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Todd H. Wagner & Jean Yoon & Josephine C. Jacobs & Angela So & Amy M. Kilbourne & Wei Yu & David E. Goodrich, 2020. "Estimating Costs of an Implementation Intervention," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(8), pages 959-967, November.
    19. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Christopher McCabe & Giovanni Tramonti & Andrew Sutton & Peter Hall & Mike Paulden, 2021. "Probabilistic One-Way Sensitivity Analysis with Multiple Comparators: The Conditional Net Benefit Frontier," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-24, January.

    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:31:y:2011:i:1:p:43-52. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.