Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures.
Neumann, Peter J; Anderson, Jordan E; Panzer, Ari D; Pope, Elle F; D'Cruz, Brittany N; Kim, David D; Cohen, Joshua T.
Afiliación
  • Neumann PJ; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Anderson JE; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Panzer AD; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Pope EF; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • D'Cruz BN; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Kim DD; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Cohen JT; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Gates Open Res ; 2: 5, 2018.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29431169
Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Gates Open Res Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Gates Open Res Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos