Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials
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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical trials (London, England) England), 2021-08, Vol.18 (4), p.500-504 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 504 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 500 |
| container_title | Clinical trials (London, England) |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Cheung, Matthew C Chan, Kelvin KW Golden, Shane Hay, Annette Pater, Joseph Prica, Anca Chen, Bingshu E Leighl, Natasha Mittmann, Nicole |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/17407745211005045 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8290988</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_17407745211005045</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2553198419</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-a2e5736183c71383ac1585f47d6468d9c68c567f4c6f5a264a0588b526ef750d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1vEzEQhlcIREvhB3BBlrhw2WKvP_eChCIokYq4lLPl2rOJK8cOtrdV-SX8XJymDV_iNKN3nnnHnum6lwSfEiLlWyIZlpLxgRCMOWb8UXe803opOX18yBk_6p6VcoXxoLiiT7sjSpUQiovj7sdnH_3GfzfVp4jShDKUNGcLaK4-POjOVINsCgFsBYdufF372IRSe5imJvpriFAKMtGE2wKl1aKb72ATUlwV7wAtWtV5E3eJhYwusjehoLOc5i3ark0BtFwuUb2Tn3dPphbgxX086b5-_HCx-NSffzlbLt6f95YJUXszAJdUEEWtJFRRYwlXfGLSCSaUG61Qlgs5MSsmbgbBDOZKXfJBwCQ5dvSke7f33c6XG3AWYs0m6G32G5NvdTJe_1mJfq1X6VqrYcSjUs3gzb1BTt9mKFVvfLEQgomQ5qIHTjgWUtChoa__Qq_artvKdhSnZFSMjI0ie8rmVEqG6fAYgvXu7vqfu7eeV7__4tDxcOgGnO6BYlbwa-z_HX8C4ei4fQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2553198419</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><creator>Cheung, Matthew C ; Chan, Kelvin KW ; Golden, Shane ; Hay, Annette ; Pater, Joseph ; Prica, Anca ; Chen, Bingshu E ; Leighl, Natasha ; Mittmann, Nicole</creator><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Matthew C ; Chan, Kelvin KW ; Golden, Shane ; Hay, Annette ; Pater, Joseph ; Prica, Anca ; Chen, Bingshu E ; Leighl, Natasha ; Mittmann, Nicole</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1740-7745</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1740-7753</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/17407745211005045</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33866856</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Categories ; Clinical trials ; Confidence intervals ; Cost analysis ; Costs ; Medical research ; Ratios ; Resource utilization ; Short Communications</subject><ispartof>Clinical trials (London, England), 2021-08, Vol.18 (4), p.500-504</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021 2021 The Society for Clinical Trials</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-a2e5736183c71383ac1585f47d6468d9c68c567f4c6f5a264a0588b526ef750d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-a2e5736183c71383ac1585f47d6468d9c68c567f4c6f5a264a0588b526ef750d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4581-3390 ; 0000-0003-3193-5872</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/17407745211005045$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17407745211005045$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33866856$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Matthew C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Kelvin KW</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Shane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hay, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pater, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prica, Anca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Bingshu E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leighl, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mittmann, Nicole</creatorcontrib><title>Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials</title><title>Clinical trials (London, England)</title><addtitle>Clin Trials</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Categories</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Ratios</subject><subject>Resource utilization</subject><subject>Short Communications</subject><issn>1740-7745</issn><issn>1740-7753</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1vEzEQhlcIREvhB3BBlrhw2WKvP_eChCIokYq4lLPl2rOJK8cOtrdV-SX8XJymDV_iNKN3nnnHnum6lwSfEiLlWyIZlpLxgRCMOWb8UXe803opOX18yBk_6p6VcoXxoLiiT7sjSpUQiovj7sdnH_3GfzfVp4jShDKUNGcLaK4-POjOVINsCgFsBYdufF372IRSe5imJvpriFAKMtGE2wKl1aKb72ATUlwV7wAtWtV5E3eJhYwusjehoLOc5i3ark0BtFwuUb2Tn3dPphbgxX086b5-_HCx-NSffzlbLt6f95YJUXszAJdUEEWtJFRRYwlXfGLSCSaUG61Qlgs5MSsmbgbBDOZKXfJBwCQ5dvSke7f33c6XG3AWYs0m6G32G5NvdTJe_1mJfq1X6VqrYcSjUs3gzb1BTt9mKFVvfLEQgomQ5qIHTjgWUtChoa__Qq_artvKdhSnZFSMjI0ie8rmVEqG6fAYgvXu7vqfu7eeV7__4tDxcOgGnO6BYlbwa-z_HX8C4ei4fQ</recordid><startdate>20210801</startdate><enddate>20210801</enddate><creator>Cheung, Matthew C</creator><creator>Chan, Kelvin KW</creator><creator>Golden, Shane</creator><creator>Hay, Annette</creator><creator>Pater, Joseph</creator><creator>Prica, Anca</creator><creator>Chen, Bingshu E</creator><creator>Leighl, Natasha</creator><creator>Mittmann, Nicole</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4581-3390</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-5872</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210801</creationdate><title>Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials</title><author>Cheung, Matthew C ; Chan, Kelvin KW ; Golden, Shane ; Hay, Annette ; Pater, Joseph ; Prica, Anca ; Chen, Bingshu E ; Leighl, Natasha ; Mittmann, Nicole</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-a2e5736183c71383ac1585f47d6468d9c68c567f4c6f5a264a0588b526ef750d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Categories</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Ratios</topic><topic>Resource utilization</topic><topic>Short Communications</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cheung, Matthew C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Kelvin KW</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Shane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hay, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pater, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prica, Anca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Bingshu E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leighl, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mittmann, Nicole</creatorcontrib><collection>Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical trials (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cheung, Matthew C</au><au>Chan, Kelvin KW</au><au>Golden, Shane</au><au>Hay, Annette</au><au>Pater, Joseph</au><au>Prica, Anca</au><au>Chen, Bingshu E</au><au>Leighl, Natasha</au><au>Mittmann, Nicole</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials</atitle><jtitle>Clinical trials (London, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Trials</addtitle><date>2021-08-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>500</spage><epage>504</epage><pages>500-504</pages><issn>1740-7745</issn><eissn>1740-7753</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>33866856</pmid><doi>10.1177/17407745211005045</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4581-3390</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-5872</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1740-7745 |
| ispartof | Clinical trials (London, England), 2021-08, Vol.18 (4), p.500-504 |
| issn | 1740-7745 1740-7753 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8290988 |
| source | Access via SAGE |
| subjects | Cancer Categories Clinical trials Confidence intervals Cost analysis Costs Medical research Ratios Resource utilization Short Communications |
| title | Minimization of resource utilization data collected within cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase III trials |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T20%3A55%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Minimization%20of%20resource%20utilization%20data%20collected%20within%20cost-effectiveness%20analyses%20conducted%20alongside%20Canadian%20Cancer%20Trials%20Group%20phase%20III%20trials&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20trials%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Cheung,%20Matthew%20C&rft.date=2021-08-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=500&rft.epage=504&rft.pages=500-504&rft.issn=1740-7745&rft.eissn=1740-7753&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/17407745211005045&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2553198419%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2553198419&rft_id=info:pmid/33866856&rft_sage_id=10.1177_17407745211005045&rfr_iscdi=true |