Chapman R H, Stone P W, Sandberg E A, Bell C, Neumann P J
Program on the Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Med Decis Making. 2000 Oct-Dec;20(4):451-67. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000409.
The authors compiled a comprehensive league table of cost/QALY ratios, and a standardized table of analyses satisfying selected Reference Case criteria from the USPHS Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
They identified 228 cost-utility analyses (CUAs) through literature searches, and abstracted data on methods and cost-utility ratios. The subset of "Panel-worthy" analyses used: a societal or broad health-care perspective, community or patient preference weights, net costs, incremental comparisons, and discounting of costs and QALYs.
The 228 CUAs included ratios for 647 interventions, ranging from cost-saving to $52,000,000/QALY (median = $12,000/QALY). The standardized table presents 112 ratios that met the "Panel-worthy" criteria, with articles published in recent years more likely to meet all of the criteria.
The comprehensive league table (available on the Web) provides a useful reference, but ratios may not be comparable because of methodologic variations. The standardized table focuses on studies meeting basic methodologic criteria, potentially allowing for better comparison with future Reference Case analyses. Future studies should investigate the quality of analyses' underlying assumptions in addition to whether certain key procedural protocols were met.
作者编制了一份成本/质量调整生命年(QALY)比率的综合排行榜,以及一份符合美国公共卫生服务部健康与医学成本效益小组选定参考案例标准的标准化分析表。
他们通过文献检索确定了228项成本效用分析(CUA),并提取了有关方法和成本效用比率的数据。“值得小组审议”的分析子集采用了:社会或广泛的医疗保健视角、社区或患者偏好权重、净成本、增量比较以及成本和QALY的贴现。
228项CUA包括647种干预措施的比率,范围从节省成本到5200万美元/QALY(中位数=12000美元/QALY)。标准化表列出了112个符合“值得小组审议”标准的比率,近年来发表的文章更有可能符合所有标准。
综合排行榜(可在网上获取)提供了有用的参考,但由于方法上的差异,比率可能无法进行比较。标准化表侧重于符合基本方法标准的研究,可能有助于与未来的参考案例分析进行更好的比较。未来的研究除了应调查是否符合某些关键程序协议外,还应研究分析基础假设的质量。