This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Meckley, L. M. Articles by Neumann, P. J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Meckley, L. M. Articles by Neumann, P. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Adoption of Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves in Cost-Utility Analyses

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lmeckley{at}tuftsmedicalcenter.org.

	Abstract

Background.Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) plot the probability that one health intervention is more cost-effective than alternatives, as a function of societal willingness to pay for additional units of health (e.g., lifeyears or quality-adjusted life-years gained). Objectives. To quantify the adoption of CEACs in published cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and to identify factors associated with CEAC use. Methods. Data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), a database with detailed information on approximately 1,400 CUAs published in the peer reviewed literature through 2006, was analyzed. The registry includes data on study origin, study methodology, reporting of results, whether CEACs were presented, and a subjective quality score. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors predicting CEAC use, from their introduction in 1994 through 2006. Results. Approximately 15% of CUAs published since 1994 present a CEAC. The use of CEACs has increased rapidly in recent years, from 2.1% of published CUAs in 2001 to 32.6% in 2006 (P > 0:0001). The most significant predictors of CEAC use were study quality (odds ratio [OR]: 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.80, 2.85), recent publication (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.73, 2.29), and whether studies pertain to the UK (OR: 5.66; 95% CI: 3.67, 8.72) or Sweden (OR: 3.76; 95% CI: 1.67, 8.44). Conclusions. CEAC use is increasing in the published cost-effectiveness literature, especially in UK-based studies. Key words: cost-utility analysis (CUA); quality-adjusted life year (QALY); cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC); uncertainty analysis. (Med Decis Making XXXX;XX:xx–xx)

First published on September 22, 2009
Medical Decision Making 2009, doi:10.1177/0272989X09344749


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?