ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF A NEW ANTIDEPRESSANT - A WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY APPROACH

被引:58
作者
OBRIEN, BJ
NOVOSEL, S
TORRANCE, G
STREINER, D
机构
[1] Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mcmaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
[2] Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St. Joseph’S Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, H-329
[3] Innovus Inc., Hamilton, Ontario
[4] Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Mcmaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
[5] School of Business, Mcmaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
[6] Department of Psychiatry, Mcmaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
关键词
D O I
10.2165/00019053-199508010-00006
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Using the method of willingness to pay (WTP), this study assesses the value of a new antidepressant, moclobemide, relative to that of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), which have equivalent efficacy but less favourable adverse effect profiles. From a published meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials, we identified 7 adverse effects, the risk of which differed significantly between moclobemide and TCAs. We obtained risk reduction data and descriptions of adverse effects from interviews with 95 individuals who had mild to moderate depression and who had been taking one or more TCAs in the previous year. Using a visual analogue scale, respondents ranked and rated each adverse effect. Participants were then asked (using the scenario of additional out-of-pocket drug payment) to quantify the maximum amount that they would pay for a new drug that reduced each adverse effect by the specified probability. Blurred vision and tremor were ranked and rated as the most bothersome adverse effects, with dry mouth being the least bothersome. On average, respondents were willing to pay an additional $Can22 per month [95% confidence interval (CI) 16-28] to reduce the risk of blurred vision from 10 to 5%. The lowest WTP value was for reducing the risk of dry mouth from 40 to 15%, at $Can11 per month (95% CI 8-15). Although not measured directly, we derived 2 estimates of WTP for multiple (i.e, all 7) risk reductions. We obtained upper and lower WTP limits of $Can118 and $Can36 per month, respectively, depending upon aggregation assumptions. Compared with the TCAs amitriptyline and imipramine, the net cost of moclobemide is greater, but the overall net benefit (WTP minus cost) is ambiguous given uncertainty about WTP aggregation over adverse effects. However, compared with the TCAs desipramine and clomipramine, the net benefit of moclobemide is unambiguously positive. We conclude that the WTP approach is a potentially valuable tool that requires more development for use in healthcare economic evaluation.
引用
收藏
页码:34 / 45
页数:12
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
Elixhauser A., Luce B.R., Taylor W.R., Et al., Health care CBA/CEA: an update in the growth and composition of the literature, Med Care, 31, pp. 1-11, (1993)
[2]  
Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including submissions involving economic analyses, (1990)
[3]  
Detsky A., Guidelines for preparation of economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada, PharmacoEconomics, 3, (1993)
[4]  
Ada M.E., McCall N.T., Gray D.T., Et al., Economic analysis in randomized control trials, Med Care, 30, (1992)
[5]  
Phelps C.E., Mushlin A.I., On the (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 7, pp. 12-21, (1991)
[6]  
Doubilet P., Weinstein M.C., McNeil B.J., Use and misuse of the term ‘cost-effective’ in medicine, N Engl J Med, 314, (1986)
[7]  
Mason J., Drummond M., Torrance G., Some guidelines on the use of cost-effectiveness league tables, BMJ, 306, (1993)
[8]  
Sugden R., Willia A.H., The principles of practical cost-benefit analysis, (1979)
[9]  
Mishan E.J., Evaluation of life and limb: a theoretical approach, J Polit Econ, 79, pp. 687-706, (1971)
[10]  
Johannesson M., Jonsson B., Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost-benefit analysis, Health Policy, 17, pp. 1-23, (1991)