Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility
AbstractIn trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis baseline mean utility values are invariably imbalanced between treatment arms. A patient's baseline utility is likely to be highly correlated with their quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the follow-up period, not least because it typically contributes to the QALY calculation. Therefore, imbalance in baseline utility needs to be accounted for in the estimation of mean differential QALYs, and failure to control for this imbalance can result in a misleading incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. This paper discusses the approaches that have been used in the cost-effectiveness literature to estimate absolute and differential mean QALYs alongside randomised trials, and illustrates the implications of baseline mean utility imbalance for QALY calculation. Using data from a recently conducted trial-based cost-effectiveness study and a micro-simulation exercise, the relative performance of alternative estimators is compared, showing that widely used methods to calculate differential QALYs provide incorrect results in the presence of baseline mean utility imbalance regardless of whether these differences are formally statistically significant. It is demonstrated that multiple regression methods can be usefully applied to generate appropriate estimates of differential mean QALYs and an associated measure of sampling variability, while controlling for differences in baseline mean utility between treatment arms in the trial. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.
Volume (Year): 14 (2005)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475.
- Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787.
- Daniel Polsky & Henry A. Glick & Richard Willke & Kevin Schulman, 1997. "Confidence Intervals for Cost-Effectiveness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 243-252.
- Paddy Gillespie & Eamon O’Shea & Andrew Murphy & Susan Smith & Mary Byrne & Molly Byrne & Margaret Cupples, 2012. "Relative cost effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in selected patient subgroups with existing coronary heart disease," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 429-443, August.
- Danielle Brunenberg & Gwenn Wetzels & Patricia Nelemans & Carmen Dirksen & Johan Severens & Henri Stoffers & Jan Schouten & Martin Prins & Peter Leeuw & Manuela Joore, 2007. "Cost Effectiveness of an Adherence-Improving Programme in Hypertensive Patients," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 239-251, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.