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

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., life-years 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.

Keywords

cost-utility analysis (CUA)quality-adjusted life year (QALY)cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC)uncertainty analysis.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

van Hout BA , Al MJ , Gordon GS , Rutten FF Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3(5): 309-19.

Bala MV , Zarkin GA , Mauskopf J. Presenting results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis: the incremental benefit curve. Health Econ. 2008;17(3):435-40.

Barton GR , Briggs AH , Fenwick EA Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value Health . 2008;11(5):886-97.

Briggs A. , Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane . Health Econ. 1998;7(8):723-40.

Briggs AH A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):257-61.

Briggs AH , O’Brien BJ

The death of cost-minimization analysis?

Health Econ. 2001;10(2):179-84.

Briggs AH , O’Brien BJ , Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:377-401.

Claxton K. , Sculpher M. , McCabe C. , et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14(4):339-47.

Eckermann S. , Briggs A. , Willan AR Health technology assessment in the cost-disutility plane. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(2): 172-81.

10.

Fenwick E. , Claxton K. , Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves . Health Econ. 2001;10(8):779-87.

11.

Fenwick E. , O’Brien BJ , Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405-15.

12.

Fenwick E. , Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry . 2005;187:106-8.

13.

Fenwick E. , Marshall DA , Levy AR , Nichol G. Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:52.

14.

Fenwick E. , Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in the dock: case not proven? Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):93-5.

15.

Hoch JS , Rockx MA , Krahn AD Using the net benefit regression framework to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of external loop recorders versus Holter monitoring for ambulatory monitoring of ‘‘community acquired’’ syncope. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:68.

16.

Lothgren M. , Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2000;9(7):623-30.

17.

Manca A. , Palmer S. Handling missing data in patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis alongside randomised clinical trials. Appl Health Econ Health Policy . 2005;4(2):65-75.

18.

Negrín MA , Vázquez-Polo FJ Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis with two measures of effectiveness: the cost-effectiveness acceptability plane. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):363-72.

19.

Negrín MA , Vázquez-Polo FJ Incorporating model uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: a Bayesian model averaging approach. J Health Econ. 2008;27(5):1250-9.

20.

O’Brien BJ , Briggs AH Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11(6):455-68.

21.

Sendi PP , Briggs AH Affordability and cost-effectiveness: decision-making on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 2001;10(7):675-80.

22.

Severens JL , Brunenberg DE , Fenwick EA , O’Brien B. , Joore MA Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a reluctance to lose. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005 ;23(12):1207-14.

23.

Willan AR On the probability of cost-effectiveness using data from randomized clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:8.

24.

Zethraeus N. , Johannesson M. , Jonsson B. , Lothgren M. , Tambour M. Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(1):39-48.

25.

Groot KB , Hunink MG , Stijnen T. , Hammitt JK , Kuntz KM , Weinstein MC Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):101-11.

26.

Neumann PJ , Greenberg D. , Olchanski NV , Stone PW , Rosen AB Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001. Value Health. 2005;8(1):3-9.

27.

Cook JR , Glick HA , Gerth W. , Kinosian B. , Kostis JB The cost and cardioprotective effects of enalapril in hypertensive patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11(12):1433-41.

28.

Sonnad SS , Greenberg D. , Rosen AB , Neumann PJ Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(3):399-402.

29.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2004 April. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf .Accessed 2008 October 23.

30.

Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. The AMCP format for formulary submissions (version 2.1). 2005 April. Available from: URL: http://www.fmcpnet.org/data/resource/Format∼Version-2_1∼Final_Final.pdf. Accessed 2009 January 14.

31.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.0). 2006 November. Available from: URL:http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/D8EBFB77AC0E7552CA25717D000AE40B/$File/pbac_guidelines.pdf. Accessed 2009 January 12.

32.

Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics . 2008;26(9):781-98.