Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials.
Cancer clinical trials
economic evaluations
incremental cost-effectiveness ratios
phase III trials
resource utilization data
Journal
Clinical trials (London, England)
ISSN: 1740-7753
Titre abrégé: Clin Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101197451
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
20
4
2021
medline:
28
10
2021
entrez:
19
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cost-effectiveness analyses embedded within randomized trials allow for evaluation of value alongside conventional efficacy outcomes; however, collection of resource utilization data can require considerable trial resources. We re-analyzed the results from four phase III Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials that embedded cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the impact of minimizing potential cost categories on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. For each trial, we disaggregated total costs into component incremental cost categories and recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using (1) only the top 3 cost categories, (2) the top 5 cost categories, and (3) all cost components. Using individual trial-level data, confidence intervals for each incremental cost-effectiveness ratio simulation were generated by bootstrapping and descriptively presented with the original confidence intervals (and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) from the publications. Drug acquisition costs represented the highest incremental cost category in three trials, while hospitalization costs represented the other consistent cost driver and the top incremental cost category in the fourth trial. Recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on fewer cost components (top 3 and top 5) did not differ meaningfully from the original published results. Based on conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$50,000-US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year), none of the re-analyses would have changed the original perception of whether the experimental therapies were considered cost-effective. These results suggest that the collection of resource utilization data within cancer trials could be narrowed. Omission of certain cost categories that have minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, such as routine laboratory investigations, could reduce the costs and undue burden associated with the collection of data required for cancer trial cost-effectiveness analyses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cost-effectiveness analyses embedded within randomized trials allow for evaluation of value alongside conventional efficacy outcomes; however, collection of resource utilization data can require considerable trial resources.
METHODS
We re-analyzed the results from four phase III Canadian Cancer Trials Group trials that embedded cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the impact of minimizing potential cost categories on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. For each trial, we disaggregated total costs into component incremental cost categories and recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using (1) only the top 3 cost categories, (2) the top 5 cost categories, and (3) all cost components. Using individual trial-level data, confidence intervals for each incremental cost-effectiveness ratio simulation were generated by bootstrapping and descriptively presented with the original confidence intervals (and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) from the publications.
RESULTS
Drug acquisition costs represented the highest incremental cost category in three trials, while hospitalization costs represented the other consistent cost driver and the top incremental cost category in the fourth trial. Recalculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on fewer cost components (top 3 and top 5) did not differ meaningfully from the original published results. Based on conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (US$50,000-US$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year), none of the re-analyses would have changed the original perception of whether the experimental therapies were considered cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that the collection of resource utilization data within cancer trials could be narrowed. Omission of certain cost categories that have minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, such as routine laboratory investigations, could reduce the costs and undue burden associated with the collection of data required for cancer trial cost-effectiveness analyses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33866856
doi: 10.1177/17407745211005045
pmc: PMC8290988
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
500-504Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U10 CA180863
Pays : United States
Références
J Oncol Pract. 2019 Sep;15(9):e807-e824
pubmed: 31306036
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 15;357(20):2040-8
pubmed: 18003960
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Nov 1;32(31):3490-6
pubmed: 25267740
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Apr 13;107(7):
pubmed: 25868579
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Mar 3;102(5):298-306
pubmed: 20160168
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 23;352(25):2589-97
pubmed: 15972865
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 1;25(16):2256-61
pubmed: 17538170
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Sep 2;101(17):1182-92
pubmed: 19666851
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 14;353(2):123-32
pubmed: 16014882