Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia
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 blee...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Adis
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/47624/ |
| _version_ | 1848797591747166208 |
|---|---|
| author | Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth |
| author_facet | Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth |
| author_sort | Sanghera, Sabina |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:06:19Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-47624 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T20:06:19Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Adis |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-476242020-05-04T17:14:12Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/47624/ Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth 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. Adis 2015-09-01 Article PeerReviewed Sanghera, Sabina, Frew, Emma, Gupta, Janesh Kumar, Kai, Joe and Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth (2015) Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. PharmacoEconomics, 33 (9). pp. 957-965. ISSN 1179-2027 Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pharmaceutical Treatments; Menorrhagia; Primary Care. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40273-015-0280-0 doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0 doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0280-0 |
| spellingShingle | Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pharmaceutical Treatments; Menorrhagia; Primary Care. Sanghera, Sabina Frew, Emma Gupta, Janesh Kumar Kai, Joe Roberts, Tracy Elizabeth Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
| title | Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
| title_full | Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
| title_fullStr | Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
| title_full_unstemmed | Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
| title_short | Exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
| title_sort | exploring the use of cost-benefit analysis to compare pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia |
| topic | Cost-Benefit Analysis; Pharmaceutical Treatments; Menorrhagia; Primary Care. |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/47624/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/47624/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/47624/ |