Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 121–129 | Cite as

The Use of Consensus Methods and Expert Panels in Pharmacoeconomic Studies

Practical Applications and Methodological Shortcomings
  • Christopher EvansEmail author
Leading Article

Summary

The use of expert opinion in pharmacoeconomic studies is widespread. A review of the relevant literature has shown that expert opinion is frequently used in decision analysis, Markov models and disease management, with estimates of potential values derived from Delphi panels, modified Delphi panels and expert round tables. These consensus-gathering methods are often applied as if potential drawbacks to their application were absent.

This article reviews and summarises the use of these techniques in pharmacoeconomic research and evaluates the potential shortcomings of the methodology employed. In particular, several areas of concern are noted: the provision of baseline information or seed algorithms to panellists, the high attrition rate of panels, the criteria for selecting experts and the definition of consensus. This article offers recommendations for the future application of these techniques and concludes that expert opinion can still play a valuable role in pharmacoeconomic research.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Expert Opinion Expert Panel Pharmacoeconomic Study Consensus Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kind P, Sorenson J. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic use of SSRIs in the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 10 Suppl. 1: 41–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piccoli A, Puggia R, Fusaro M, et al. A decision analysis comparing three dosage regimens of subcutaneous epoetin in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(5): 444–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stewart A. Antidepressant pharmacotherapy: cost comparison of SSRIs and TCAs. Br J Med Econ 1994; 7: 67–79Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Commonwealth Department of Health Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmacy benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing House, 1992Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torrance G, Blaker D, Detsky A. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9(6): 535–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sackman H. Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting and group process; Lexington (MA): Lexington Books, 1975Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le Pen C, Levy E, Ravily V, et al. The cost of treatment dropout in depression: a cost benefit analysis of fluoxetine vs. tricyclics. J Affect Disord 1994; 31: 1–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reves R, Johnson P, Ericsson C, et al. A cost-effectiveness comparison of the use of antimicrobial agents for the treatment or prophylaxis of traveller’s diarrhoea. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 2421–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams S, Eisenberg JM, Pascale L, et al. Physicians’ perceptions about unnecessary diagnostic testing. Inquiry 1982; 19: 363–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong JB, Kokk R, Tine F, et al. Cost effectiveness of Interferon α2b treatment for hepatitis B e antigen—positive chronic hepatitis B. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 664–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Revicki D, Brown R, Palmer W, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary care. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(6): 524–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hatziandreu E, Brown R, Revicki D, et al. Cost utility of maintenance treatment of recurrent depression with sertraline versus episodic treatment with dothiepin. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5(3): 249–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simpson K, Hatziandreu E, Andersson F, et al. Cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment with zalcitabine plus zidovudine for AIDS patients with CD4+ counts less than 300/µl in 5 European countries. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6(6): 553–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Brien B, Goeree R, Mohamed H, et al. Cost effectiveness of Heliobacter pylori eradication in the long-term management of duodenal ulcer in Canada. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 1958–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larrat EP. Cost effectiveness study of nitrate therapy using decision analysis methodology. Hosp Formul 1994; 29: 277–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearson SD, Margolis C, Davis S, et al. Is consensus reproducible? A study of an algorithmic guideline development process. Med Care 1995; 33(6): 643–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naylor DC, Baigrie R, Goldman B, et al. Assigning priority for patients requiring coronary revascularization: consensus principles from a panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. Can J Cardiol 1991; 7(5): 207–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDonnell J, Meijler A, Kahan J, et al. Panellist consistency in the assessment of medical appropriateness. Health Policy 1996; 139–52Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alexandrov A, Pullicino P, Meslin E, et al. Agreement on disease specific criteria for do-not-resuscitate orders in acute stroke. Stroke 1996; 27: 232–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brook R, Chassin M, Fink A. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1986; 2: 53–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nuijten M, Hardens M, Souetre E. A Markov process analysis comparing the cost effectiveness of maintenance therapy with citalopram versus standard therapy in major depression. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(2): 159–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bentkover J, Feighner J. Cost analysis of paroxetine versus imipramine in major depression. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(3): 223–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Craig AM, Davey P, Malek M, et al. Decision analysis of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy using omeprazole with either clarithromycin or amoxicillin. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10(1): 79–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martens L, Guibert R. Cost effectiveness analysis of lipid modifying therapy in Canada: comparison of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Clin Ther 1994; 16(6): 1052–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Einarson T, Arikian S, Sweeney S, et al. A model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of oral therapies in the management of patients with major depressive disorders. Clin Ther 1995; 17(1): 136–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Severo C, Fagnani F, Lafuma A. Cost effectiveness of hepatitis A prevention in France. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(1): 46–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shear N, Einarson T, Arikian S, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of topical treatments for tinea infections. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(3): 251–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marchetti A, Piech CT, McGhan W, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomycosis: a US model. Clin Ther 1996; 18(4): 757–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jonsson B, Bebbington P. What price depression? The cost of depression and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatment. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 164: 665–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dittus R, Roberts S, Adolph R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of patient management alternatives after uncomplicated myocardial infarction: a model. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 869–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dittus R, Roberts S, Adolph J, et al. Cost-effective management of patients following myocardial infarction: the impact of ischemia on alternative approaches. PACE 1988; 11: 2086–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Imperiale T, Speroff T, Cebul R, et al. A cost analysis of alternative treatments for duodenal ulcer. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 665–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bloom B, Hillman A, Fendrick M, et al. A reappraisal of hepatitis B virus vaccination strategies using cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 298–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lurie P, Avins A, Phillips K, et al. The cost-effectiveness of voluntary counseling and testing of hospital inpatients for HIV infection. JAMA 1994: 272(23): 1832–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Phillips K, Lowe R, Kahn J. The cost-effectiveness of HIV testing of physicians and dentists in the United States. JAMA 1994; 271(11): 851–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Begley C, Annegers J, Lairson D, et al. Cost of epilepsy in the United States: a model based on incidence and prognosis. Epilepsia 1994; 35(6): 1230–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Field M, Lohr K. Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use. Washington (DC): National Academy Press, 1992Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jariath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology: a useful administrative approach. Can J Nurs Adm 1994; 7 (4 Pt 2): 7–20Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jariath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology: a useful administrative approach. Can J Nurs Adm 1994, 7 (3 Pt 1): 29–42Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gruber M. The development of a position statement using the Delphi technique. Gastoenterol Nurs 1993 Oct: 68–71Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barr J, Schumacher G. Using decision analysis to conduct pharmacoeconomic studies. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 1197–214Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Williams P, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19: 180–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vermeulen L, Ratko T, Erstad B, et al. A paradigm of consensus: the University Hospital Consortium guidelines for the use of albumin nonprotein colloid and crystalloid solutions. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 373–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Lewin GroupCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations