Switching therapy in health economics trials: Confronting the confusion

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 335-340

  Torrance, George W ^a,b   Drummond, Michael F ^c   Walker, Valery ^b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b i3 Global   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical trial; Crossovers; Health economics; Pragmatic; Randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

CANADA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DRUG EVALUATION; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; THERAPEUTIC HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION;

EID: 0041306164     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03256007     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Economic Analyses. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Community Services; 1995.
2. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:61-70.
3. Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1172-7.
4. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1253-8.
5. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 1997.
6. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical Guidance for Manufacturers and Sponsors on Making a Submission to a Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2001.
7. Simon GE, VonKorff M, Heiligenstein JH, et al. Initial antidepressant choice in primary care. JAMA. 1996;275:1897-902.
8. Ellwein LB, Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: bias in the assessment of economic outcomes. Int J Tech Assess Health Care. 1996;12:691-7.
9. O'Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein's monster or vampire of trials? Med Care. 1996;34:DS99-108.
10. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis With Missing Data. Toronto, Canada: John Wiley; 1987.
11. Diggle P, Kenward MG. Informative drop-out in longitudinal data analysis. Appl Stat. 1994;43:49-93.
12. Mounier N, Ferme C, Flechtner H, Henry-Amar M, Lepage E. Model-based methodology for analyzing incomplete quality of life data and integrating them into the Q-TWIST framework. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:54-66.
13. Torrance GW, Walker V, Grossman R, et al. Economic evaluation of ciprofloxacin compared with usual antibacterial care for the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in patients followed for 1 year. PharmacoEconomics. 1999;16:499-520.
14. Essock SM, Frisman LK, Covell NH, Hargreaves WA. Cost-effectiveness of clozapine compared with conventional antipsychotic medication for patients in state hospitals. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:987-94.
15. Andersson F, Kjellman M, Forsberg G, Moller C, Arheden L. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of budesonide and sodium cromoglycate in the management of childhood asthma in everyday clinical practice. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2001;86:537-44.
16. Drummond MF, Knapp MRJ, Burns TP, Miller KD, Shadwell P. Issues in the design of studies for the economic evaluation of new atypical antipsychotics: the ESTO study. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 1998;1:15-21.
17. Bouchard R, Merette C, Pourcher E, et al. Longitudinal comparative study of risperidine and conventional neuroleptics for treating patients with schizophrenia. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2000;20:295-304.
18. Raynauld J-P, Torrance GW, Band PA, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:506-17.
19. Torrance GW, Raynauld J-P, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (part 2 of 2): economic results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:518-27.
20. Weinstein GS, Levin B. Effect of crossover on the statistical power of randomized studies. Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;48:490-5.
21. Diamond GA, Denton TA. Alternative perspectives on the biased foundations of medical technology assessment. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:455-64.
22. Fisher LD, Kaiser GC, Davis KB, Mock MB. Crossovers in coronary artery bypass grafting trials: desirable, undesirable or both? Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;48:465-6.
23. Peduzzi P, Wittes J, Detre K, Holford T. Analysis as-randomized and the problem of non-adherence: an example from the Veterans Affairs randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Stat Med. 1993;12:1185-95.
24. Torgerson DK, Campbell MK. Unequal randomisation can improve the economic efficiency of clinical trials. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:81-5.