The authors present an analysis of the choice of sample sizes for demonstrating cost-effectiveness of a new treatment or procedure, when data on both cost and efficacy will be collected in a clinical trial. The Bayesian approach to statistics is employed, as well as a novel Bayesian criterion that provides insight into the sample size problem and offers a very flexible formulation.
Australia Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analysis. Canberra: Australia Government Publishing Service, 1995.
2.
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada (2nd ed.). Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1997.
3.
Norwegian Medicines Control Authority. Norwegian Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis in Connection with Application for Reimbursement. Norway: The Norwegian Medicines Control Authority, Department of Pharmacoeconomics, 1999.
4.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors [online]. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/. Accessed 2001.
5.
Wakker P, Klaassen MP. Confidence intervals for cost/effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1995;4:373-381.
6.
Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an application of Fieller’s theorem. Health Econ. 1996;5:297-305.
7.
Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C.Statistical inference for cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1997;6:229-242.
8.
Lacey L, Mauskopf J, Lindrooth R, Pham S, Saag M, Sawyer W.A prospective cost-consequence analysis of adding lamivudine to zidovudine-containing antiretroviral treatment regimens for HIV infection in the US. PharmacoEconomics. 1999;15(Suppl 1):23-37.
9.
Pieters WR, Lundbäck B, Johansson G, et al.Cost-effectiveness analyses of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination product and fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma. II: study methodologies. PharmacoEconomics. 1999;16(Suppl. 2): 9-14.
10.
Tennvall G, Norinder A, Ohlin B.Cost effectiveness of helicobacter pylori eradication therapies in patients with duodenal ulcer: an analysis of triple therapy versus two dual therapy alternatives. PharmacoEconomics. 1999;16:297-306.
11.
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J.Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(Suppl): S68-S80.
12.
Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten F.Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994; 3:309-319.
13.
O’Hagan A, Stevens JW, Montmartin J.Inference for the C/E acceptability curve and C/E ratio. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17:339-349.
14.
Raikou M, Gray A, Briggs A, et al. (on behalf of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group). Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. Br Med J. 1998;317:720-726.
15.
Sculpher M, Poole L, Cleland J, et al. (on behalf of the ATLAS Study Group). Low doses versus high doses of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in chronic heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study. Eur J Heart Failure. 2000;2:447-454.
16.
Willan, AR, O’Brien BJ. Sample size and power issues in estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials data. Health Econ. 1999;8:203-211.
17.
Gardiner JC, Huebner M, Jetton J, Bradley CJ. Power and sample size assessments for tests of hypotheses on cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 2000;9:227-234.
18.
Briggs A, Gray AM. Sample size and power calculations for stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(Suppl.):S81-S92.
19.
Briggs A, Tambour M.The design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies for the evaluation of health care interventions (Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 234). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm School of Economics, 1998.
20.
Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C.Power and sample size in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1999;19: 339-343.
21.
Chaloner K, Verdinelli I.Bayesian experimental design: a review. Stat Sci. 1995;10:273-304.
22.
Lindley DV. The choice of sample size. The Statistician. 1997;46:129-138.
23.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS. A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial, based on subjective clinical opinion. Stat Med. 1986;5:1-13.
24.
Hutton JL, Owens RG. Bayesian sample size calculations and prior beliefs about child sexual abuse. The Statistician. 1993;42:399-404.
25.
Lee SJ, Zelen M.Clinical trials and sample size considerations: another perspective. Stat Sci. 2000;15: 95-103.
26.
Lindley DV, Singpurwalla ND. On the evidence needed to reach agreed action between adversaries, with application to acceptance sampling. J Am Stat Assoc. 1991;86:933-937.
27.
Etzioni R, Kadane JB. Optimal experimental design for another’s analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:1404-1411.
28.
Simon R.Comment. Stat Sci. 2000;15:103-105.
29.
O’Hagan A, Stevens JW. A framework for cost-effectiveness analysis from clinical trial data. Health Econ. 2000.
30.
O’Hagan A.Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics. Volume 2B, Bayesian Inference. London: Arnold, 1994. Paragraphs 6.48-6.54.
