Cost‐minimisation Analysis Versus Cost‐effectiveness Analysis, Revisited

Abstract

We aim to establish whether it is ever appropriate to conduct cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) rather than cost-effectiveness analysis.We perform a literature review to examine how the use of CMA has changed since Briggs & O'Brien announced its death in 2001. Examples of simulated and trial data are presented: firstly to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of CMA in the context of non-inferiority trials and those finding no significant difference in efficacy and secondly to assess whether CMA gives biased results.We show that CMA is still used and will bias measures of uncertainty, causing overestimation or underestimation of the value of information and the probability that treatment is cost-effective. Although bias will be negligible for non-inferiority studies comparing treatments that differ enormously in cost, it is generally necessary to collect and analyse data on costs and efficacy (including utilities) to assess this bias. Cost-effectiveness analysis (including evaluation of the joint distribution of costs and benefits) is almost always required to avoid biased estimation of uncertainty. The remit of CMA in trial-based economic evaluation is therefore even narrower than previously thought, suggesting that CMA is not only dead but should also be buried.

Cost effectiveness of amoxicillin for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: an economic evaluation accounting for the cost of antimicrobial resistance

“…However, within the current paradigm, it is considered best practice that cost-effectiveness analysis should be conducted, because of the importance of estimating costs and effects jointly. 34 This study found that amoxicillin is associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio of €8216 (£6540) per QALY gained, indicating that the intervention is cost effective if the cost of resistance is ignored. The threshold at which the cost of resistances makes a difference to this decision is, however, low -between around €6 (£5) and €11 (£9) for the current NICE thresholds.…”

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupressure for the control and management of chemotherapy-related acute and delayed nausea: Assessment of Nausea in Chemotherapy Research (ANCHoR), a randomised controlled trial

“…Even given that the EQ-5D changes were below those levels that are minimally important and were not significant, and the QALY gains were minimal (for acupressure vs standard care), one cannot evaluate the cost-effectiveness without considering costs. 82,83 Mean costs resulting from NHS resource use were consistently higher for the standard care only group than for the acupressure group; this finding was relatively robust to sensitivity analyses. However, because very little resource use was recorded in the study and the results may have been unduly influenced by outliers with high costs, this finding is relatively uncertain and must be treated with caution.…”

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis diagnosis in South Africa: A real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation

“…14 A full methodological description of the study according to the MEEP reference case can be found in the appendix. Our approach also reflects the economic school of thought that, even when trial results find no significant evidence of an effect, a full cost-effectiveness analysis should be done, presenting all uncertainty in both costs and effects 15 …”