Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodological Hurdles in Conducting Pharmacoeconomic Analyses

  • Review Article
  • Methodological Hurdles in Pharmacoeconomic Analysis
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As total healthcare spending increases throughout the world, greater emphasis is being placed on research which demonstrates value for medical interventions, including new and existing pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations can assist manufacturers, insurers, clinicians, governmental agencies, policy-makers and consumers to make informed, appropriate decisions about adoption and application of new medications. Because of the far-reaching implications of this research, it is important that researchers adequately address methodological challenges.

In this article, we describe the uses of results of pharmacoeconomic trials, identify and discuss various study designs and methods for gathering nonclinical outcome data which may differ significantly from clinical outcome data, and consider the importance and difficulty of incorporating the patients’ experience into such trials. Researchers in this area must give specific consideration to sample size estimation for economic outcomes, and carefully handle time issues including duration of observation for complications and discounting of future health and financial consequences. Costs from different perspectives associated with resource use should be assembled in a standard fashion. Use of charges which may not be standardised across geographical or organisational boundaries are discouraged. Inclusion of appropriate health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) and utility instruments is increasingly important, but controversy over the best methods still exists. While there is little question of the importance of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, they are expensive. Well designed and executed pharmacoeconomic trials can justify this expense by helping decision-makers understand which treatments have value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD). OECD Health Data 97. Paris: OECD, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  2. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Ottawa (ON): CCOHTA, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  3. Menon D, Schubert F, Torrance GW. Canadas new guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Med Care 1996; 34 (12 Suppl. S): DS77–86

    Google Scholar 

  4. Commonwealth Department of Health, Local Government. Background document: on the use of economic analysis as a basis for inclusion of pharmaceutical products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  5. Evans D, Freund D, Dittus R, et al. The use of economic analysis as a basis for inclusion of pharmaceutical products on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Canberra: Department Health, Housing, Community Service, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  6. Powe NR, Griffiths RI. The clinical-economic trial: promise, problems, and challenges. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16: 377–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. United States Congress and Office of Technology Assessment. Pharmaceutical research and development: costs, risks and rewards. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  8. Drummond M, Jonsson B, Rutten F. The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy 1997; 40 (3): 199–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Luce BR, Lyles CA, Rentz AM. The view from managed care pharmacy. Health Aff 1996; 15 (4): 168–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Steiner CA, Powe NR, Anderson GF, et al. The review process and information used by health care plans in the United States to evaluate new medical technology. J Gen Intern Med 1996; 11294–302

    Google Scholar 

  11. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for ht euse of hematopoietic colony stimulating factors: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 2471–508

    Google Scholar 

  12. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Update of recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony stimulating factors: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14 (6): 1957–60

    Google Scholar 

  13. Iglehart JK. The American health care system: expenditures. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 70–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A. Small area variations in health care delivery: a population-based health information system can guide planning and regulatory decision-making. Science 1973; 182: 1102–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A. Health care delivery in Maine. I: patterns of use of common surgical procedures. J Maine Med Assoc 1975; 66: 123–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A. Health care delivery in Maine. II: conditions explaining admission to hospital. J Maine Med Assoc 1975; 66: 255–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A. Health care delivery in Maine. III: evaluating the performance of hospitals. J Maine Med Assoc 1975; 66: 298–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A. Variations in medical care among small areas. Sci Am 1982; 246 (4): 120–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wennberg JE, Cooper MM, editors. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1998. Chicago (IL): American Hospital Publishing, Inc., 1998

    Google Scholar 

  20. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49, January 21-23, 1997. Journal Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89 (14): 1015–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  22. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. In: Cost-effectiveness and clinical preventive services. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Wilkins, 1996: 1xxxv–cii

    Google Scholar 

  23. Medicare Program: criteria and procedures for making medical services coverage decisions that relate to health care technology. Fed Regist 1989; 54: 4304

  24. State of Maryland Health Care Access and Cost Commission. Comparing the quality of Maryland HMO’s: a guide for consumers. Baltimore (MD): Maryland Health Care Access and Cost Commission, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  25. Assessing medical technologies: Institute of Medicine Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985

  26. Schulman KA, Llana T, Yabroff KR. Economic assessment within the clinical development program. Med Care 1996; 34 (12 Suppl.): DS89–95

    Google Scholar 

  27. Iezonni LI. Assessing quality using administrative databases. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 666–74

    Google Scholar 

  28. Whittle J. Large administrative databases in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: tools for evaluation health technologies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995. Report no.: BP-H-142

    Google Scholar 

  29. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Frazier AS, et al. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia (PA): WB Saunders, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  30. Glick H, Schulman KA, Kinosian B. Decision-analytic modelling: some uses in the evaluation of new pharmaceuticals. Drug Inf J 1994; 28: 691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zbrozek AS, Cantor SB, Cardenas MP, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Am J Hosp Pharm 1994; 51 (12): 1555–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhou X, Melfi CA, Hiui SL. Methods for comparison of cost data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 752–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, Hall J, et al. Design of a cost-effectiveness study within a randomized trial – the LIPID trial for secondary prevention of IHD. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18 (5): 464–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332 (21): 1418–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Eisenberg J. Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262: 2879–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (13): 716–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kennedy BJ. Excessive test costs in clinical research protocols. J Cancer Educ 1991; 6 (2): 93–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bennett CL, George SL, Vose JM, et al. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor as adjunct therapy in relapsed lymphoid malignancy: implications for economic analyses of phase III clinical trials. Stem Cells 1995; 13 (4): 414–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Davidoff AJ, Powe NR. The role of perspective in defining economic measures for the evaluation of medical technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (1): 9–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Udvarhelyi S, Colditz GA, Rai A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 238–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rizzo J, Vogelsang G, Krumm S, et al. Outpatient BMT for hematologic malignancies: cost-saving or cost-shifting? [abstract]. Blood 1997; 90 (10 Suppl. 1): 417a

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13 (2): 89–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, et al. Toward consistency in cost utility analyses: using national measures to create condition- specific values. Med Care 1998; 36: 775–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Bern CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res 1976; 11: 478–527

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ware JE, Sherbourne DC. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11 (3): 570–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. O’Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, et al. Comparison of time-tradeoff utilities and rating scale values of cancer patients and their relatives: evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 132–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fink N, Bass E, Wills S, et al. Quality of life (preferences) for current health status in incident hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997; 8: 137A

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bennett CL, Westerman IL. Economic analysis during phase III clinical trials: who, what, when, where, and why?. Oncology 1995; 9 (11 Suppl.): 169–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhou XH, Melfi CA, Hui SL. Methods for comparison of cost data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 752–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhou XH, Gao S, Hui SL. Methods for comparing the means of two independent log-normal samples. Biometrics 1998; 53: 1129–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shine KI. Some imperatives for clinical research. JAMA 1997; 278 (3): 245–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, et al. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 (2): 101–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Hillman AL, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991; 324 (19): 1362–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal’s policy on cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry/Autologous Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

    J. Douglas Rizzo

  2. Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    J. Douglas Rizzo &  Neil R. Powe

  3. Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2024 E. Monument Street, Suite 2-641, Baltimore, Maryland, 21205-2223, USA

    Neil R. Powe

  4. Department of Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Neil R. Powe

Authors
  1. J. Douglas Rizzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neil R. Powe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil R. Powe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rizzo, J.D., Powe, N.R. Methodological Hurdles in Conducting Pharmacoeconomic Analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 15, 339–355 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915040-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915040-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation