Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia

Tools

Sanghera, Sabina, Frew, Emma, Gupta, Janesh Kumar, Kai, Joe and Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth (2015) Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. PharmacoEconomics, 33 (9). pp. 957-965. ISSN 1179-2027

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40273-015-0280-0

Abstract

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.

Item Type:

Article

RIS ID:

https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/758134

Keywords:

Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pharmaceutical Treatments; Menorrhagia; Primary Care.

Schools/Departments:

University of Nottingham, UK > Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Medicine > Division of Primary Care

Identification Number:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0

Related URLs: