This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Drummond, M. F. Articles by McGuire, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Drummond, M. F. Articles by McGuire, A. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Selection of End Points in Economic Evaluations of Coronary-heart-disease Interventions

Joseph Heyse

John Cook

Alistair McGuire

Economic evaluations of interventions to lower blood pressure or cholesterol have used different outcome measures, or end points, in the denominator. Some have related the costs of interventions to improvements in physiologic end points such as mm Hg reduction in blood pressure. Some have related costs to avoidance of coronary heart disease (CHD) events or gains in life expectancy. Others have measured improvements in outcome in quality- adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The different end points imply different analytic per spectives and different data requirements. The more ambitious analyses, though potentially more relevant in certain situations, require more controversial assumptions to be made. This paper illustrates the trade-offs of relevance, accuracy, and precision by reference to an evaluation of drug therapy for hypercholesterolemia undertaken in the United Kingdom. Estimates are given of cost per percentage cholesterol reduction, cost per CHD event avoided, cost per CHD-free year gained, cost per life year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. In each case the assumptions required and the potential relevance of the estimate are discussed. The main findings are that: 1) some end points cannot be discounted to present values in a meaningful way and hence the timing of costs and outcomes cannot be reflected in the analysis; 2) the incorporation of quality-of-life adjustments for years on drug therapy and years post-CHD events greatly changes the cost-effectiveness ratios; 3) the rate of discount changes the pretreatment level of cholesterol for which cost per life year gained is equivalent to cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Key words: economic evaluation; cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-utility analysis; quality of life; risk assessment model; coronary heart disease; drug therapy. (Med Decis Making 1993;13:184-190)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 13, No. 3, 184-190 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9301300303


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Lalonde, A. E. Clarke, L. Joseph, and S. A. Grover Conventional and Chained Standard Gambles in the Assessment of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and Treatment Med Decis Making, April 1, 1999; 19(2): 149 - 156. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. A. Ubel, G. Loewenstein, D. Scanlon, and M. Kamlet Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices: A Partial Explanation of Why Oregon's Cost-Effectiveness List Failed Med Decis Making, June 1, 1996; 16(2): 108 - 116. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Wonderling, S. Langham, M. Buxton, C. Normand, and C. McDermott What can be concluded from the Oxcheck and British family heart studies: commentary on cost effectiveness analyses BMJ, May 18, 1996; 312(7041): 1274 - 1278. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				P. A. Ubel and R. M. Arnold The Unbearable Rightness of Bedside Rationing: Physician Duties in a Climate of Cost Containment Arch Intern Med, September 25, 1995; 155(17): 1837 - 1842. [Abstract] [PDF]