Advantages of the net benefit regression framework for trial-based economic evaluations of cancer treatments: an example from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 trial.
Cost-effectiveness
Economic evaluation
Net benefit regression
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jun 2019
07 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
11
12
2018
accepted:
31
05
2019
entrez:
9
6
2019
pubmed:
9
6
2019
medline:
21
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Economic evaluations commonly accompany trials of new treatments or interventions; however, regression methods and their corresponding advantages for the analysis of cost-effectiveness data are not widely appreciated. To illustrate regression-based economic evaluation, we review a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group's Committee on Economic Analysis and implement net benefit regression. Net benefit regression offers a simple option for cost-effectiveness analyses of person-level data. By placing economic evaluation in a regression framework, regression-based techniques can facilitate the analysis and provide simple solutions to commonly encountered challenges (e.g., the need to adjust for potential confounders, identify key patient subgroups, and/or summarize "challenging" findings, like when a more effective regimen has the potential to be cost-saving). Economic evaluations of patient-level data (e.g., from a clinical trial) can use net benefit regression to facilitate analysis and enhance results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Economic evaluations commonly accompany trials of new treatments or interventions; however, regression methods and their corresponding advantages for the analysis of cost-effectiveness data are not widely appreciated.
METHODS
METHODS
To illustrate regression-based economic evaluation, we review a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group's Committee on Economic Analysis and implement net benefit regression.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Net benefit regression offers a simple option for cost-effectiveness analyses of person-level data. By placing economic evaluation in a regression framework, regression-based techniques can facilitate the analysis and provide simple solutions to commonly encountered challenges (e.g., the need to adjust for potential confounders, identify key patient subgroups, and/or summarize "challenging" findings, like when a more effective regimen has the potential to be cost-saving).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Economic evaluations of patient-level data (e.g., from a clinical trial) can use net benefit regression to facilitate analysis and enhance results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31174497
doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5779-x
pii: 10.1186/s12885-019-5779-x
pmc: PMC6555934
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
552Références
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):415-30
pubmed: 12112491
BMJ. 2004 Jul 24;329(7459):224-7
pubmed: 15271836
Value Health. 2004 Sep-Oct;7(5):518-28
pubmed: 15367247
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun 06;6:68
pubmed: 16756680
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(10):807-16
pubmed: 17887803
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 15;357(20):2040-8
pubmed: 18003960
Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):771-83
pubmed: 18179658
N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 23;359(17):1757-65
pubmed: 18946061
Health Econ. 2010 Mar;19(3):316-33
pubmed: 19378353
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Aug 5;101(15):1044-8
pubmed: 19564563
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Sep 2;101(17):1182-92
pubmed: 19666851
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):947-61
pubmed: 19888794
Curr Oncol. 2013 Apr;20(2):121-4
pubmed: 23559876
Cancer. 2014 Apr 1;120(7):1042-9
pubmed: 24435411
J Occup Environ Med. 2014 Apr;56(4):441-5
pubmed: 24662952
Health Econ. 2015 Oct;24(10):1256-1271
pubmed: 25251336
Support Care Cancer. 2017 Aug;25(8):2505-2513
pubmed: 28281050
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(4):481-486
pubmed: 28871898
Med Care. 1994 Feb;32(2):150-63
pubmed: 8302107
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
pubmed: 9566468