PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15061679

How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions?

Bruce R Schackman·Heather Taffet Gold·Patricia W Stone·Peter J Neumann
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the extent to which sensitivity analysis has been used in the cost-effectiveness literature. Sensitivity analyses for health-related QOL (HR-QOL), cost and discount rate economic parameters are of particular interest because they measure the effects of methodological and estimation uncertainties. AIM: To investigate the use of sensitivity analyses in the pharmaceutical cost-utility literature in order to test whether a change in economic parameters could result in a different conclusion regarding the cost effectiveness of the intervention analysed. METHODS: Cost-utility analyses of pharmaceuticals identified in a prior comprehensive audit (70 articles) were reviewed and further audited. For each base case for which sensitivity analyses were reported (n = 122), up to two sensitivity analyses for HR-QOL (n = 133), cost (n = 99), and discount rate (n = 128) were examined. Article mentions of thresholds for acceptable cost-utility ratios were recorded (total 36). Cost-utility ratios were denominated in US dollars for the year reported in each of the original articles in order to determine whether a different conclusion would have been indicated at the time the article was published. Quality ratings from the original audit for articles where sensitivity analysis results crossed the cost-utility ratio threshold above the base-case result were compared with those that did not. RESULTS: The most frequently mentioned cost-utility thresholds were $US20,000/QALY, $US50,000/QALY, and $US100,000/QALY. The proportions of sensitivity analyses reporting quantitative results that crossed the threshold above the base-case results (or where the sensitivity analysis result was dominated) were 31% for HR-QOL sensitivity analyses, 20% for cost-sensitivity analyses, and 15% for discount-rate sensitivity analyses. Almost half of the discount-rate sensitivity analyses did not report quantitative results. Articles that reported sensitivity analyses where results crossed the cost-utility threshold above the base-case results (n = 25) were of somewhat higher quality, and were more likely to justify their sensitivity analysis parameters, than those that did not (n = 45), but the overall quality rating was only moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity analyses for economic parameters are widely reported and often identify whether choosing different assumptions leads to a different conclusion regarding cost effectiveness. Changes in HR-QOL and cost parameters should be used to test alternative guideline recommendations when there is uncertainty regarding these parameters. Changes in discount rates less frequently produce results that would change the conclusion about cost effectiveness. Improving the overall quality of published studies and describing the justifications for parameter ranges would allow more meaningful conclusions to be drawn from sensitivity analyses.

Explore related subjects

Costs and Cost AnalysisEconomics, PharmaceuticalHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bruce R Schackman, Heather Taffet Gold, Patricia W Stone, Peter J Neumann. 2004. How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions?. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422050-00003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Predicting costs of mental health care: a critical literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation research in the mental health field is being increasingly recognized as a way to achieve a more effective deployment of scarce resources. However, there is a paucity of studies that seek to identify predictors of psychiatric service utilization and costs. This paper aims to critically review the published research in the field of psychiatric service utilization and costs, and discusses current methodological developments in this field. METHOD: Sixteen studies were identified and are critically reviewed. RESULTS: No single variable alone can explain variations in costs between patients; instead, a range of different clinical and non-clinical variables provides a greater explanation of cost variations. Having a history of previous psychiatric service use is the most consistent predictor of higher psychiatric costs. Only one study considers indirect costs incurred by users, their families and friends and society as a whole, with the remaining 15 studies focusing on direct mental health care costs. There is a lack of studies that consider the future psychiatric service utilization and costs of care of children and older people. The cross-validation of predictive models is not yet routine, with only four of the studies including a cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive approach in mental health cost evaluation has relevance for both mental health policy and practice. However, there is a paucity of studies that focus on children, older people and indirect costs. Furthermore, there remain a number of methodological challenges to address.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗
PubMed2007

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. RESULTS: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6% ($113.89) higher in "very remote" areas than in "major cities" (P < 0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P < 0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗