These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis?
    Author: Chapman RH, Berger M, Weinstein MC, Weeks JC, Goldie S, Neumann PJ.
    Journal: Health Econ; 2004 May; 13(5):429-36. PubMed ID: 15127423.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: This paper investigates the impact of quality-of-life adjustment on cost-effectiveness analyses, by comparing ratios from published studies that have reported both incremental costs per (unadjusted) life-year and per quality-adjusted life-year for the same intervention. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified 228 original cost-utility analyses published prior to 1998. Sixty-three of these analyses (173 ratio pairs) reported both cost/LY and cost/QALY ratios for the same intervention, from which we calculated medians and means, the difference between ratios (cost/LY minus cost/QALY) and between reciprocals of the ratios, and cost/LY as a percentage of the corresponding cost/QALY ratio. We also compared the ratios using rank-order correlation, and assessed the frequency with which quality-adjustment resulted in a ratio crossing the widely used cost-effectiveness thresholds of 20, 000 US dollars, 50,000 US dollars, and 100,000 US dollars/QALY or LY. RESULTS: The mean ratios were 69,100 US dollars/LY and 103,100 US dollars/QALY, with corresponding medians of 24,600 US dollars/LY and 20,400 US dollars/QALY. The mean difference between ratios was approximately -34,300 US dollars (median difference: 1300 US dollars), with 60% of ratio pairs differing by 10,000 US dollars/year or less. Mean difference between reciprocals was 59 (QA)LYs per million dollars (median: 2.1). The Spearman rank-order correlation between ratio types was 0.86 (p<0.001). Quality-adjustment led to a ratio moving either above or below 50,000 US dollars/LY (or QALY) in 8% of ratio pairs, and across 100,000 US dollars in 6% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: In a sizable fraction of cost-utility analyses, quality adjusting did not substantially alter the estimated cost-effectiveness of an intervention, suggesting that sensitivity analyses using ad hoc adjustments or 'off-the-shelf' utility weights may be sufficient for many analyses. The collection of preference weight data should be subjected to the same scrutiny as other data inputs to cost-effectiveness analyses, and should only be under-taken if the value of this information is likely to be greater than the cost of obtaining it.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]