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.Krahn M, Bryan S, Lee K, et al. Embracing the science of value in health. CMAJ 2019;191:E733–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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). [Google Scholar]
- 3.Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, 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). [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 2015;18:161–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cuthbertson BH, Rattray J, Campbell MK, 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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Stevens K, McCabe C, Jones C, 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Weintraub WS, Cohen DJ. The limits of cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009;2:55–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ramsey SD, McIntosh M, Sullivan SD. Design issues for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials. Annu Rev Public Health 2001;22:129–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]