Search

Objective: To develop a user-friendly tool for managing the transfer of economic evaluation results.Methods: Factors that may influence the transfer of health economic study results were systematically identified and the way they impact on transferability was investigated. A transferability decision chart was developed that includes: knock-out criteria; a checklist based on the transferability factors; and methods for improving transferability and for assessing the uncertainty of transferred results. This approach was tested on various international cost-effectiveness studies in the areas of interventional cardiology, vaccination and screening.Results: The transfer of study results is possible pending the outcomes of the transferability check and necessary adjustments. Transferability factors can be grouped into areas of methodological, healthcare system and population characteristics. Different levels of effort are required for analysis of factors, ranging from very low (e.g. discount rate) to very high (e.g. practice variation). The impact of differences of most transferability factors can be estimated via the key health economic determinants: capacity utilisation, effectiveness, productivity loss and returns to scale. Depending on the outcomes of the transferability check a correction of the study results for inflation and for differences related to currencies or purchasing power might be sufficient. Otherwise, modelling-based adjustments might be necessary, requiring the (re-)building and sometimes structural modification of the study model. For determination of the most essential adjustments, a univariate sensitivity analysis seems appropriate. If not all relevant study parameters can be substituted with country-specific ones, multivariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis seems to be a promising way to quantify the uncertainty associated with a transfer. If study results cannot be transferred, the transfer of study models or designs should be investigated as this can significantly save time when conducting a new study.Conclusions: Our transferability decision chart is a transparent and user-friendly tool for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results. A state of the art description of the methodology in a study, providing detailed components for calculation, is not only essential for determining its transferability but also for improving it via modelling adjustments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overactive bladder is a common condition, with recent findings estimating the prevalence in adults at about 15%. Symptoms, including urinary urgency, high voiding frequency and urge incontinence, have been shown to decrease patients' quality of life. Given its high prevalence, the economic burden of overactive bladder is also substantial, with a recent estimate placing the annual cost in the US at 9.1 billion US dollars (year 2000 values). The objective of this review is to provide a critical appraisal of published economic evaluations of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for overactive bladder. Published economic evaluations of treatments for overactive bladder have focused entirely on pharmacological treatments -- mainly on the two most commonly used drugs, oxybutynin and tolterodine, each of which is available in immediate- and extended-release formulations. Ten economic evaluations (more than half are cost-effectiveness studies) have been published. Modelling with decision trees or Markov models has been the predominant method. Evaluations comparing drug therapy with no treatment have concluded that drug therapy is cost effective. Analyses comparing the formulations of oxybutynin and tolterodine have produced highly inconsistent results, largely due to the sources of data employed for effectiveness and treatment discontinuation rates. There are no evaluations of drugs relative to non-pharmacological treatment, and there are other significant gaps in the economic evaluations of treatment to date. These include gaps resulting from a lack of reliable data on the performance of these drugs in real-world settings, particularly data on long-term persistence with treatment. A more definitive pharmacoeconomic comparison of oxybutynin and tolterodine formulations, incorporating all available clinical data, and other treatment options would help direct treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]