Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study

Article English OPEN
Franklin, M. ; Davis, S. ; Horspool, M. ; Kua, W.S. ; Julious, S. (2017)
  • Publisher: Springer Verlag
  • Journal: Pharmacoeconomics, volume 35, issue 5, pages 561-573 (issn: 1170-7690, eissn: 1179-2027)
  • Related identifiers: pmc: PMC5385191, doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0484-y
  • Subject: Original Research Article

Background Large observational datasets such as Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) provide opportunities to conduct clinical studies and economic evaluations with efficient designs. Objectives Our objectives were to report the economic evaluation methodology for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a UK NHS-delivered public health intervention for children with asthma that was evaluated using CPRD and describe the impact of this methodology on results. Methods CPRD identified eligible patients using predefined asthma diagnostic codes and captured 1-year pre- and post-intervention healthcare contacts (August 2012 to July 2014). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) 4 months post-intervention were estimated by assigning utility values to exacerbation-related contacts; a systematic review identified these utility values because preference-based outcome measures were not collected. Bootstrapped costs were evaluated 12 months post-intervention, both with 1-year regression-based baseline adjustment (BA) and without BA (observed). Results Of 12,179 patients recruited, 8190 (intervention 3641; control 4549) were evaluated in the primary analysis, which included patients who received the protocol-defined intervention and for whom CPRD data were available. The intervention’s per-patient incremental QALY loss was 0.00017 (bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals [BCa 95% CI] –0.00051 to 0.00018) and cost savings were £14.74 (observed; BCa 95% CI –75.86 to 45.19) or £36.07 (BA; BCa 95% CI –77.11 to 9.67), respectively. The probability of cost savings was much higher when accounting for BA versus observed costs due to baseline cost differences between trial arms (96.3 vs. 67.3%, respectively). Conclusion Economic evaluations using data from a large observational database without any primary data collection is feasible, informative and potentially efficient. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN03000938. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0484-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • References (53)
    53 references, page 1 of 6

    1. CPRD. Clinical Practice Research Datalink. 2016. https://www. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.

    2. ResearchOne. ResearchOne. 2016. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.

    3. HES. Hospital Episode Statistics. 2016. hes. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.

    4. van Staa T-P, Goldacre B, Gulliford M, Cassell J, Pirmohamed M, Taweel A, et al. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ. 2012;344:1-7.

    5. Thorn JC, Coast J, Cohen D, Hollingworth W, Knapp M, Noble SM, et al. Resource-use measurement based on patient recall: issues and challenges for economic evaluation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):155-61.

    6. Franklin M, Berdunov V, Edmans J, Conroy S, Gladman J, Tanajewski L, et al. Identifying patient-level health and social care costs for older adults discharged from acute medical units in England. Age Ageing. 2014;43(5):703-7.

    7. Tanajewski L, Franklin M, Gkountouras G, Berdunov V, Edmans J, Conroy S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a specialist geriatric medical intervention for frail older people discharged from acute medical units: economic evaluation in a two-centre randomised controlled trial (AMIGOS). PloS One. 2015;10(5):1-18.

    8. Tanajewski L, Franklin M, Gkountouras G, Berdunov V, Harwood RH, Goldberg SE, et al. Economic Evaluation of a general hospital unit for older people with delirium and dementia (TEAM Randomised Controlled Trial). PloS One. 2015;10(12):1-20.

    9. Horspool MJ, Julious SA, Boote J, Bradburn MJ, Cooper CL, Davis S, et al. Preventing and lessening exacerbations of asthma in school-age children associated with a new term (PLEASANT): study protocol for a cluster randomised control trial. Trials. 2013;14:297-307.

    10. Julious SA, Horspool MJ, Davis S, Bradburn M, Norman P, Shephard N, et al. PLEASANT: preventing and lessening exacerbations of asthma in school-age children associated with a new term-a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(93).

  • Related Research Results (2)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark