2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00245.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Practical Guidelines for Economic Evaluations Alongside Equivalence Trials

Abstract: An effective treatment already exists for many diseases. In these cases the effectiveness of a new treatment may be established by showing that the new treatment is as effective as (i.e., equivalent to) or at least as effective as (i.e., noninferior to) the old treatment. For an economic evaluation accompanying a clinical equivalence or noninferiority trial it is important to decide before the start of the study on the appropriate research question. In many cases the objective of the economic evaluation will b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even in situations where equivalence or non-inferiority are demonstrated, exploration of the joint distribution of costs and effects in a cost-effectiveness analysis is recommended to represent uncertainty 75 and to help interpret the economic results. 76 For these reasons, we prespecified that we would undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis irrespective of whether or not non-inferiority in the primary clinical outcome was demonstrated. We assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of QALYs using the net benefit approach.…”
Section: Economic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even in situations where equivalence or non-inferiority are demonstrated, exploration of the joint distribution of costs and effects in a cost-effectiveness analysis is recommended to represent uncertainty 75 and to help interpret the economic results. 76 For these reasons, we prespecified that we would undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis irrespective of whether or not non-inferiority in the primary clinical outcome was demonstrated. We assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of QALYs using the net benefit approach.…”
Section: Economic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors are aware of the preference for costeffectiveness analyses and cost-effectiveness planes as a valuable tool in the interpretation of both costs and effects. 17,20 The use of cost-minimisation analysis is, in most cases, regarded as inappropriate in studies designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of two interventions. 20,21 However, in comparing nurse practitioner or GP consultations, no significant differences in outcome or process measures were found.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17,20 The use of cost-minimisation analysis is, in most cases, regarded as inappropriate in studies designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of two interventions. 20,21 However, in comparing nurse practitioner or GP consultations, no significant differences in outcome or process measures were found. 10 Consequently, it was considered that the sum of these measures represents equivalence between the intervention group and reference group within the study practices.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…clinical endpoints (Span et al, 2006) or costs (Bosmans et al, 2008) that have been suggested previously are unlikely to minimise bias within uncertainty estimates.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%