OBJECTIVES: In the public debate surrounding public health and prevention, it is sometimes assumed that preventive interventions are by definition cost-effective. This study aims to explore whether preventive pharmaceutical interventions are more cost-effective than a curative approach to diseases. METHODS: A descriptive study identified European economic evaluations in the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry between 2000 and 2007. Data were extracted on publication year, target population, intervention, patient sample, disease, prevention stage, and incremental cost-utility ratio of each economic evaluation. Preventive interventions were defined as measures preventing disease onset. Curative interventions related to measures identifying patients with risk factors or preclinical disease or interventions limiting disability after harm has occurred. Results were expressed in terms of costs (valued in 2008 Euro) per quality-adjusted life year. The association between incremental cost-utility ratios and prevention stage was examined by means of the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The analysis included 231 studies that reported information about 608 incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Preventive interventions included interventions that were more effective and less expensive than comparators (41% of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios), and interventions that improved outcomes and increased costs (59%). Both preventive and curative interventions covered the full range of cost-effectiveness results. However, preventive interventions had a significantly lower median ratio of 6,255 € per quality-adjusted life year and were thus more cost-effective than curative interventions (12,917 € per quality-adjusted life year) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions varies substantially, preventive interventions tended to be more cost-effective than curative interventions.