THE CHANGING FACE OF THE COST-UTILITY LITERATURE, 1990–2012
Author(s)
Thorat T1, Shi J1, Saret CJ2, Cohen JT2, Neumann PJ3
1Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, 2Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health,Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, 3Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies,Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
OBJECTIVES: Cost-utility analysis (CUA) has been extensively used to assess and convey health care intervention costs and health benefits. We examined the growth and characteristics of published English-language CUAs through 2012. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegisty.org), which contains detailed information on more than 4,000 English-language CUAs published in peer-reviewed journals. We summarized study intervention types, disease areas researched, funding sources, journals of publication and methodological practices over three time periods: 1990-1999, 2000-2009, and 2010-2012. We also investigated the extent to which the number of CUAs focusing on each of several worldwide geographic regions was correlated with regional disease burden. RESULTS: The number of CUAs published steadily increased over time, from 34 annually during the 1990s to 431 annually during 2010-2012. The number of CUAs published during 2012 (n=538) exceeded the number published in 2011 (n=372) by 45%. The proportion of CUAs targeting the US population declined from 61% during 1990-1999 to 35% during 2010-2012 (p<0.0001). Most interventions have focused on pharmaceuticals (47%), followed by surgery (13%), screening (12%) and medical procedures (12%). Of the diseases researched, cardiovascular disease is the most common (18% of all studies), followed by cancer (15%) and infectious diseases (15%). During 1990-2012, 51% of CUAs performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses and 33% included acceptability curves. The proportion of CUAs funded by the drug industry varies substantially across journals. Investigators in low- and middle-income countries contributed an increasing number of published CUAs in recent years. Across all geographic regions, few CUAs have focused on injuries relative to their population burden. CONCLUSIONS: Our review reveals considerable growth and some change in the cost-utility literature in recent years. The data suggest growing interest in cost-utility methodology, particularly in developing countries.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2015-05, ISPOR 2015, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 18, No. 3 (May 2015)
Code
PHP122
Topic
Health Service Delivery & Process of Care
Topic Subcategory
Health Care Research
Disease
Multiple Diseases