Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St, Box 063, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Oct;38(10):1135-1145. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2.
Our objective was to examine perspective and costing approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and the distribution of reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center's CEA and Global Health CEA registries, containing 6907 cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and 698 cost-per-disability-adjusted-life-year (DALY) studies published through 2018. We examined how often published CEAs included non-health consequences and their impact on ICERs. We also reviewed 45 country-specific guidelines to examine recommended analytic perspectives.
Study authors often mis-specified or did not clearly state the perspective used. After re-classification by registry reviewers, a healthcare sector or payer perspective was most prevalent (74%). CEAs rarely included unrelated medical costs and impacts on non-healthcare sectors. The most common non-health consequence included was productivity loss in the cost-per-QALY studies (12%) and patient transportation in the cost-per-DALY studies (21%). Of 19,946 cost-per-QALY ratios, the median ICER was $US26,000/QALY (interquartile range [IQR] 2900-110,000), and 18% were cost saving and QALY increasing. Of 5572 cost-per-DALY ratios, the median ICER was $US430/DALY (IQR 67-3400), and 8% were cost saving and DALY averting. Based on 16 cost-per-QALY studies (2017-2018) reporting 68 ICERs from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, the median ICER from a societal perspective ($US22,710/QALY [IQR 11,991-49,603]) was more favorable than from a healthcare sector perspective ($US30,402/QALY [IQR 10,486-77,179]). Most governmental guidelines (67%) recommended either a healthcare sector or a payer perspective.
Researchers should justify and be transparent about their choice of perspective and costing approaches. The use of the impact inventory and reporting of disaggregate outcomes can reduce inconsistencies and confusion.
本研究旨在考察成本效益分析(CEA)中使用的观点和成本方法,以及报告的增量成本效益比(ICER)的分布情况。
我们分析了塔夫茨医疗中心的 CEA 和全球健康 CEA 注册中心,其中包含了 1994 年至 2018 年期间发表的 6907 项每质量调整生命年(QALY)成本和 698 项每残疾调整生命年(DALY)成本研究。我们考察了发表的 CEA 中包含非健康后果的频率及其对 ICER 的影响。我们还审查了 45 项国家特定指南,以考察推荐的分析观点。
研究作者经常错误指定或未明确说明使用的观点。经过注册中心审查员的重新分类,医疗保健部门或支付方的观点最为常见(74%)。CEA 很少包括无关的医疗费用和对非医疗保健部门的影响。在成本-每 QALY 研究中最常见的非健康后果是生产力损失(12%),在成本-每 DALY 研究中是患者运输(21%)。在 19946 个每 QALY 比值中,中位数 ICER 为 26000 美元/QALY(四分位距 [IQR] 2900-110000),18%为成本节约和 QALY 增加。在 5572 个每 DALY 比值中,中位数 ICER 为 430 美元/DALY(IQR 67-3400),8%为成本节约和 DALY 避免。基于 16 项成本-每 QALY 研究(2017-2018 年)报告了来自医疗保健部门和全社会观点的 68 个 ICER,从全社会角度(22710 美元/QALY [IQR 11991-49603])得出的 ICER 比从医疗保健部门角度(30402 美元/QALY [IQR 10486-77179])更有利。大多数政府指南(67%)建议采用医疗保健部门或支付方的观点。
研究人员应证明并透明化其观点和成本方法的选择。使用影响清单和报告离散结果可以减少不一致和混淆。