Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2015

Open Access 01-09-2015 | Original Research Article

Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia

Authors: Sabina Sanghera, Emma Frew, Janesh Kumar Gupta, Joe Kai, Tracy Elizabeth Roberts

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework.

Objective

We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia.

Methods

A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected.

Results

Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed.

Conclusion

The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2013. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2013.
2.
go back to reference Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and the costs of healthcare programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra-welfarism. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1121–33.CrossRefPubMed Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and the costs of healthcare programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra-welfarism. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1121–33.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
4.
go back to reference National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Heavy menstrual bleeding. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2007. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Heavy menstrual bleeding. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2007.
5.
go back to reference Shapley M, Jordan K, Croft PR. Why women consult with increased vaginal bleeding: a case–control study. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52:108–13.PubMedCentralPubMed Shapley M, Jordan K, Croft PR. Why women consult with increased vaginal bleeding: a case–control study. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52:108–13.PubMedCentralPubMed
7.
go back to reference Sanghera S, Frew E, Kai J, Gupta J, Roberts TE. An assessment of economic measures used in menorrhagia: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:149–53.CrossRefPubMed Sanghera S, Frew E, Kai J, Gupta J, Roberts TE. An assessment of economic measures used in menorrhagia: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:149–53.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.CrossRefPubMed Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference McIntosh E, Clarke PM, Frew EJ, Louviere JL. Applied methods of cost-benefit analysis in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. McIntosh E, Clarke PM, Frew EJ, Louviere JL. Applied methods of cost-benefit analysis in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
10.
go back to reference Shaw RW, Brickley MR, Evans L, Edwards MJ. Perceptions of women on the impact of menorrhagia on their health using multi-attribute utility assessment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:1155–9.CrossRefPubMed Shaw RW, Brickley MR, Evans L, Edwards MJ. Perceptions of women on the impact of menorrhagia on their health using multi-attribute utility assessment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:1155–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Gupta J, Kai J, Middleton L, Pattison H, Gray R. Levonorgestrel intrauterine system vs medical therapy for menorrhagia. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:128–37.CrossRefPubMed Gupta J, Kai J, Middleton L, Pattison H, Gray R. Levonorgestrel intrauterine system vs medical therapy for menorrhagia. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:128–37.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL. A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. Health Econ. 2003;22(4):555–74.CrossRef Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL. A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. Health Econ. 2003;22(4):555–74.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in healthcare: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 2003;12:609–28.CrossRefPubMed Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in healthcare: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 2003;12:609–28.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Smith RD. It’s not just what you do, it’s the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Econ. 2006;15:281–93.CrossRefPubMed Smith RD. It’s not just what you do, it’s the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Econ. 2006;15:281–93.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary 62. London, UK: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2011. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary 62. London, UK: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2011.
16.
go back to reference Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care: 2011. Canterbury: Personal Social Service Research Unit; 2011. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care: 2011. Canterbury: Personal Social Service Research Unit; 2011.
17.
go back to reference Shackley P, Donaldson C. Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for healthcare? New evidence from using a ‘marginal’ approach. J Health Econ. 2002;21:971–91.CrossRefPubMed Shackley P, Donaldson C. Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for healthcare? New evidence from using a ‘marginal’ approach. J Health Econ. 2002;21:971–91.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Shackley P, Donaldson C. Willingness to pay for publicly financed healthcare: how should we use the numbers? Appl Econ. 2000;32:2015–21.CrossRef Shackley P, Donaldson C. Willingness to pay for publicly financed healthcare: how should we use the numbers? Appl Econ. 2000;32:2015–21.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
20.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
21.
go back to reference Haefeli M, Elfering A, Mcintosh E, Gray A, Sukthankar A, et al. A cost-benefit analysis using contingent valuation techniques: a feasibility study in spinal surgery. Value Health. 2008;11:575–88.CrossRefPubMed Haefeli M, Elfering A, Mcintosh E, Gray A, Sukthankar A, et al. A cost-benefit analysis using contingent valuation techniques: a feasibility study in spinal surgery. Value Health. 2008;11:575–88.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia
Authors
Sabina Sanghera
Emma Frew
Janesh Kumar Gupta
Joe Kai
Tracy Elizabeth Roberts
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

PharmacoEconomics 9/2015 Go to the issue