Adjusting for Baseline Covariates in Net Benefit Regression

How You Adjust Matters

Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Maureen Markle-Reid, Jeffrey S Hoch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objective: The literature has shown that different baseline adjustment approaches lead to different results when examining cost and quality-adjusted life-years. To our knowledge, the concept of baseline adjustment in a net benefit (NB) regression has not been studied. The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of different baseline adjustment approaches in an NB framework on the cost effectiveness of an intervention using person-level data. Methods: This study used data from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial falls prevention intervention for older home care clients. The outcome was the number of falls at the 6-month follow-up. The cost variable was the total healthcare costs from a societal perspective. Incremental NB values were estimated using four baseline adjustment approaches: (1) the change in NB is the dependent variable; (2) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable without adjusting for baseline values; (3) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable adjusting for baseline NB; and (4) the NB at follow-up is also the dependent variable adjusting for baseline cost and effect separately. Results: With adjustment of baseline values (Approach 1, 3, 4), the intervention was not cost effective when compared to usual care. Conversely, without baseline adjustment (Approach 2), the intervention was cost effective if decision-makers’ willingness-to-pay per fall prevented was CAN$10,000 or greater. Conclusions: This study showed that different baseline adjustment approaches in a cost-effectiveness analysis can lead to different results. Future research is needed to determine the most appropriate adjustment approach in planning economic evaluation using NB regression.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1083-1090
Number of pages8
JournalPharmacoEconomics
Volume33
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 26 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Home Care Services
Health Care Costs
Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Adjusting for Baseline Covariates in Net Benefit Regression : How You Adjust Matters. / Isaranuwatchai, Wanrudee; Markle-Reid, Maureen; Hoch, Jeffrey S.

In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 33, No. 10, 26.10.2015, p. 1083-1090.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Isaranuwatchai, Wanrudee ; Markle-Reid, Maureen ; Hoch, Jeffrey S. / Adjusting for Baseline Covariates in Net Benefit Regression : How You Adjust Matters. In: PharmacoEconomics. 2015 ; Vol. 33, No. 10. pp. 1083-1090.
@article{f71564dd515440669eb23deb87815d57,
title = "Adjusting for Baseline Covariates in Net Benefit Regression: How You Adjust Matters",
abstract = "Background and Objective: The literature has shown that different baseline adjustment approaches lead to different results when examining cost and quality-adjusted life-years. To our knowledge, the concept of baseline adjustment in a net benefit (NB) regression has not been studied. The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of different baseline adjustment approaches in an NB framework on the cost effectiveness of an intervention using person-level data. Methods: This study used data from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial falls prevention intervention for older home care clients. The outcome was the number of falls at the 6-month follow-up. The cost variable was the total healthcare costs from a societal perspective. Incremental NB values were estimated using four baseline adjustment approaches: (1) the change in NB is the dependent variable; (2) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable without adjusting for baseline values; (3) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable adjusting for baseline NB; and (4) the NB at follow-up is also the dependent variable adjusting for baseline cost and effect separately. Results: With adjustment of baseline values (Approach 1, 3, 4), the intervention was not cost effective when compared to usual care. Conversely, without baseline adjustment (Approach 2), the intervention was cost effective if decision-makers’ willingness-to-pay per fall prevented was CAN$10,000 or greater. Conclusions: This study showed that different baseline adjustment approaches in a cost-effectiveness analysis can lead to different results. Future research is needed to determine the most appropriate adjustment approach in planning economic evaluation using NB regression.",
author = "Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai and Maureen Markle-Reid and Hoch, {Jeffrey S}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1007/s40273-015-0287-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "1083--1090",
journal = "PharmacoEconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adjusting for Baseline Covariates in Net Benefit Regression

T2 - How You Adjust Matters

AU - Isaranuwatchai, Wanrudee

AU - Markle-Reid, Maureen

AU - Hoch, Jeffrey S

PY - 2015/10/26

Y1 - 2015/10/26

N2 - Background and Objective: The literature has shown that different baseline adjustment approaches lead to different results when examining cost and quality-adjusted life-years. To our knowledge, the concept of baseline adjustment in a net benefit (NB) regression has not been studied. The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of different baseline adjustment approaches in an NB framework on the cost effectiveness of an intervention using person-level data. Methods: This study used data from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial falls prevention intervention for older home care clients. The outcome was the number of falls at the 6-month follow-up. The cost variable was the total healthcare costs from a societal perspective. Incremental NB values were estimated using four baseline adjustment approaches: (1) the change in NB is the dependent variable; (2) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable without adjusting for baseline values; (3) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable adjusting for baseline NB; and (4) the NB at follow-up is also the dependent variable adjusting for baseline cost and effect separately. Results: With adjustment of baseline values (Approach 1, 3, 4), the intervention was not cost effective when compared to usual care. Conversely, without baseline adjustment (Approach 2), the intervention was cost effective if decision-makers’ willingness-to-pay per fall prevented was CAN$10,000 or greater. Conclusions: This study showed that different baseline adjustment approaches in a cost-effectiveness analysis can lead to different results. Future research is needed to determine the most appropriate adjustment approach in planning economic evaluation using NB regression.

AB - Background and Objective: The literature has shown that different baseline adjustment approaches lead to different results when examining cost and quality-adjusted life-years. To our knowledge, the concept of baseline adjustment in a net benefit (NB) regression has not been studied. The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of different baseline adjustment approaches in an NB framework on the cost effectiveness of an intervention using person-level data. Methods: This study used data from a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial falls prevention intervention for older home care clients. The outcome was the number of falls at the 6-month follow-up. The cost variable was the total healthcare costs from a societal perspective. Incremental NB values were estimated using four baseline adjustment approaches: (1) the change in NB is the dependent variable; (2) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable without adjusting for baseline values; (3) the NB at follow-up is the dependent variable adjusting for baseline NB; and (4) the NB at follow-up is also the dependent variable adjusting for baseline cost and effect separately. Results: With adjustment of baseline values (Approach 1, 3, 4), the intervention was not cost effective when compared to usual care. Conversely, without baseline adjustment (Approach 2), the intervention was cost effective if decision-makers’ willingness-to-pay per fall prevented was CAN$10,000 or greater. Conclusions: This study showed that different baseline adjustment approaches in a cost-effectiveness analysis can lead to different results. Future research is needed to determine the most appropriate adjustment approach in planning economic evaluation using NB regression.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942366133&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942366133&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40273-015-0287-6

DO - 10.1007/s40273-015-0287-6

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 1083

EP - 1090

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 10

ER -