Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Cost-effectiveness analysis should be mandatory in clinical-effectiveness research

Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Xavier Willaert and Brian H. Cuthbertson
CMAJ October 15, 2019 191 (41) E1140; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.73298
Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan
Consultant, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Apollo Hospitals; Chennai Critical Care Consultants Group, Chennai, India
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xavier Willaert
Consultant, Department of Critical Care Medicine, ZOL, Genk, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian H. Cuthbertson
Professor of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We read with interest the paper by Krahn and colleagues in the July 2 edition of the journal.1 We agree with their arguments on the scientific value of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and the broad need to incorporate CEA in clinical guideline development and public health decision making.

We suggest that we need to go a step further by mandating CEA for all clinical trials funded by governmental payers as part of the original study design. Several research funding agencies around the world (e.g., National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom) already strongly encourage this.2,3 The Medical Research Council states explicitly that “An economic evaluation should be included if at all possible, as this will make the results far more useful for decision-makers.”3

In 2005, the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research published the “Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials” report, updated in 2014.4 It offers several useful directions to researchers on trial design, data management, analysis and reporting from a CEA framework, and we believe this serves as a readily available template for researchers and policy makers.

In our own sphere of expertise (critical care medicine), several examples of such joint economic evaluations exist, including the PRaCTICaL5 and PAC-Man6 trials. The PRaCTICAL trial studied the effect of postintensive care clinics on physical and psychological quality of life after discharge from critical care. The trial concluded that these clinics were not cost-effective owing to a lack of clinical effectiveness. The PAC-Man trial also offers some interesting insights on how joint CEAs are critical to the wider health care system and specifically to policy makers. This trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in the management of patients in the intensive care unit. While the trial itself found no difference in the primary outcome of mortality between the patients who received pulmonary artery catheters and those who did not, the economic evaluation that was undertaken in parallel indicated that withdrawal of pulmonary artery catheters from intensive care units would be cost-effective for the National Health Service.7

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there are several challenges to the incorporation of CEA alongside clinical trials, including the use of uncommon or inappropriate comparators, and narrow inclusion and exclusion criteria that may reduce generalizability and pragmatism in trials that enhance compliance with interventions.8,9 Additionally, in multinational clinical trials, there are challenges with wide variations in health care delivery and payer models. None of these issues, however, are insurmountable and demand only a deeper engagement by researchers at the trial design and analysis stages.

Public resources are finite, and numerous health problems and priorities compete for the same slice of the pie. The mere intent or ability to show clinical effectiveness in trials is inadequate to guide the health care delivery agenda. We believe it is time for policy makers and funders in Canada, including the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to mandate CEA as part of all clinical-effectiveness research.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Krahn M,
    2. Bryan S,
    3. Lee K,
    4. et al
    . Embracing the science of value in health. CMAJ 2019;191:E733–6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    HTA Stage 1 guidance notes. London (UK): National Institute for Health Research; 2019 (May 31). Available: www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/hta-stage-1-guidance-notes/11743 (accessed 2019 July 23).
  3. ↵
    1. Craig P,
    2. Dieppe P,
    3. Macintyre S,
    4. et al
    . Developing and evaluating complex interventions. Swindon (UK): Medical Research Council. Available: https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance/ (accessed 2019 July 23).
  4. ↵
    1. Ramsey SD,
    2. Willke RJ,
    3. Glick H,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 2015;18:161–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Cuthbertson BH,
    2. Rattray J,
    3. Campbell MK,
    4. et al.
    PRaCTICaL study group. The PRaCTICaL study of nurse led, intensive care follow-up programmes for improving long term outcomes from critical illness: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;339:b3723.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Harvey S,
    2. Harrison DA,
    3. Singer M,
    4. et al.
    PAC-Man study collaboration. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:472–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Stevens K,
    2. McCabe C,
    3. Jones C,
    4. et al.
    PAC-Man Study Collaboration. The incremental cost effectiveness of withdrawing pulmonary artery catheters from routine use in critical care. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005;4:257–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Weintraub WS,
    2. Cohen DJ
    . The limits of cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009;2:55–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Ramsey SD,
    2. McIntosh M,
    3. Sullivan SD
    . Design issues for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials. Annu Rev Public Health 2001;22:129–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (41)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 41
15 Oct 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cost-effectiveness analysis should be mandatory in clinical-effectiveness research
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Cost-effectiveness analysis should be mandatory in clinical-effectiveness research
Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Xavier Willaert, Brian H. Cuthbertson
CMAJ Oct 2019, 191 (41) E1140; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.73298

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Cost-effectiveness analysis should be mandatory in clinical-effectiveness research
Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, Xavier Willaert, Brian H. Cuthbertson
CMAJ Oct 2019, 191 (41) E1140; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.73298
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Embracing the science of value in health
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): study protocol
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Final consent, advance consent and alleviating suffering in frail adults requesting MAiD
  • Should physicians rethink travel to conferences?
  • Leveling the playing field in long-term care
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire