ArticlePLoS medicine2009
A comparison of cost effectiveness using data from randomized trials or actual clinical practice: selective cox-2 inhibitors as an example.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Inhaled therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1-high metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in Australia: evidence from trials and real-world practice.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Observational
- Article
- An examination of user costs in relation to smokers using a cessation service based in the UK.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Use of generic and essential medicines for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in Portugal.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Article
- Improving the transparency of prognosis research: the role of reporting, data sharing, registration, and protocols.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- Osteoarthritis and the rule of halves.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2014Observational
- Sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatic oncology · 2014Review
- Evaluating adverse drug event reporting in administrative data from emergency departments: a validation study.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- A turbulent decade for NSAIDs: update on current concepts of classification, epidemiology, comparative efficacy, and toxicity.Rheumatology international · 2012Review
- Recent advances in the utility and use of the General Practice Research Database as an example of a UK Primary Care Data resource.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2012Review
- Reassessing the evidence hierarchy in asthma: evaluating comparative effectiveness.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2011Review
- Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2011Review
- Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Review
- Article
- Academic impact of a public electronic health database: bibliometric analysis of studies using the general practice research database.PloS one · 2011Article
- For cost effectiveness, real data trumps trial results.Nature medicine · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData on absolute risks of outcomes and patterns of drug use in cost-effectiveness analyses are often based on randomised clinical trials (RCTs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the external validity of published cost-effectiveness studies by comparing the data used in these studies (typically based on RCTs) to observational data from actual clinical practice. Selective Cox-2 inhibitors (coxibs) were used as an example. METHODS AND
findingsThe UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) was used to estimate the exposure characteristics and individual probabilities of upper gastrointestinal (GI) events during current exposure to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or coxibs. A basic cost-effectiveness model was developed evaluating two alternative strategies: prescription of a conventional NSAID or coxib. Outcomes included upper GI events as recorded in GPRD and hospitalisation for upper GI events recorded in the national registry of hospitalisations (Hospital Episode Statistics) linked to GPRD. Prescription costs were based on the prescribed number of tables as recorded in GPRD and the 2006 cost data from the British National Formulary. The study population included over 1 million patients prescribed conventional NSAIDs or coxibs. Only a minority of patients used the drugs long-term and daily (34.5% of conventional NSAIDs and 44.2% of coxibs), whereas coxib RCTs required daily use for at least 6-9 months. The mean cost of preventing one upper GI event as recorded in GPRD was US$104k (ranging from US$64k with long-term daily use to US$182k with intermittent use) and US$298k for hospitalizations. The mean costs (for GPRD events) over calendar time were US$58k during 1990-1993 and US$174k during 2002-2005. Using RCT data rather than GPRD data for event probabilities, the mean cost was US$16k with the VIGOR RCT and US$20k with the CLASS RCT.
conclusionsThe published cost-effectiveness analyses of coxibs lacked external validity, did not represent patients in actual clinical practice, and should not have been used to inform prescribing policies. External validity should be an explicit requirement for cost-effectiveness analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.