Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research?

PURPOSE: We examined 512 published cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in the U.S. and other developed countries from 1976 through 2001 to determine: 1) the types of interventions studied; 2) whether they cover diseases and conditions with the highest burden; and, 3) to what extent they have covered leading health concerns defined by the Healthy People 2010 report. DATA AND METHODS: We compared rankings of the most common diseases covered by the CUAs to rankings of U.S. disease burden. We also examined the extent to which CUAs covered key Healthy People 2010 priorities. RESULTS: CUAs have focused mostly on pharmaceuticals (40%) and surgical procedures (16%). When compared to leading causes of DALYs, the data show overrepresentation of CUAs in cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS, and underrepresentation in depression and bipolar disorder, injuries, and substance abuse disorders. Few CUAs have targeted Healthy People 2010 areas, such as physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Published CUAs are associated with burden measures, but have not covered certain important health problems. These discrepancies do not alone indicate that society has been targeting resources for research inefficiently, but they do suggest the need to formalize the question of where each CUA research dollar might do the most good.

Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although many peer-reviewed journals have adopted standards for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), guidelines do not exist for the accompanying abstracts. Abstracts are the most easily accessed portion of journal articles, yet little is known about their quality. The authors examined the extent to which abstracts of published CEAs include key data elements (intervention, comparator, target population, study perspective) and assessed the effect of journal characteristics on reporting quality. METHODS: Systematic review of the English-language medical literature from 1998 through 2001. The authors searched MEDLINE for original CEAs reported in costs per quality-adjusted life years(i.e., cost-utility analyses). Two independent readers abstracted data elements and met to resolve discrepancies. RESULTS: Among the 303 abstracts reviewed, a clear description of the intervention was present in 94%, comparator in 71%, target population in 85%, and study perspective in 28%. All 4 data elements were reported in 20% of abstracts, 3 elements in 49%, 2 in 22%, and 0 or 1 in 9%. In journals with CEA-specific abstract reporting requirements, structured abstract requirements, or impact factors>or=10, significantly more data were included in abstracts than in journals without these features (P<0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts of published CEAs frequently omit data elements critical to proper study interpretation. An explicit core set of reporting standards is needed, based on the standards by the US Public Health Service's Panel on Cost-Effectiveness for reporting of CEAs, but specific to the accompanying abstracts.

Cost-utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The rising cost of health care has increased the need for the orthopaedic community to understand and apply economic evaluations. We critically reviewed the literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analysis to determine which subspecialty areas are represented, the cost-utility ratios that have been utilized, and the quality of the present literature. METHODS: We searched the English-language medical literature published between 1976 and 2001 for orthopaedic-related cost-utility analyses in which outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year. Two trained reviewers independently audited each article to abstract data on the methods and reporting practices used in the study as well as the cost-utility ratios derived by the analysis. RESULTS: Our search yielded thirty-seven studies, in which 116 cost-utility ratios were presented. Eleven of the studies were investigations of treatment strategies in total joint arthroplasty. Study methods varied substantially, with only five studies (14%) including four key criteria recommended by the United States Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. According to a reader-assigned measure of study quality, cost-utility analyses in orthopaedics were of lower quality than those in other areas of medicine (p = 0.04). While the number of orthopaedic studies has increased in the last decade, the quality did not improve over time and did not differ according to subspecialty area or journal type. For the majority of the interventions that were studied, the cost-utility ratio was below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year for acceptable cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Because of limitations in methodology, the current body of literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analyses has a limited ability to guide policy, but it can be useful for setting priorities and guiding research. Future research with clear and transparent reporting is needed in all subspecialty areas of orthopaedic practice.

Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001.

PURPOSE: Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have become increasingly popular, although questions persist about their comparability and credibility. Our objectives were to: 1) describe the growth and characteristics of CUAs published in the peer-reviewed literature through 2001; 2) investigate whether CUA quality has improved over time; 3) examine whether quality varies by the experience of journals in publishing CUAs, or the source of external funding for study investigators; and 4) examine changes in practices in US-based studies following recommendations of the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (USPCEHM). This study updates and expands our previous work, which examined CUAs through 1997. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the English-language medical literature for original CUAs published from 1976 through 2001, using Medline and other databases. Each study was audited independently by two trained readers, who recorded the methodological and reporting practices used. RESULTS: Our review identified 533 original CUAs. Comparing articles published in 1998 to 2001 (n = 305) with those published in 1976 to 1997 (n = 228), studies improved in almost all categories, including: clearly presenting the study perspective (73% vs. 52%, P < 0.001); discounting both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (82% vs. 73%, P = 0.0115); and reporting incremental cost-utility ratios (69% vs. 46%, P < 0.001). The proportion of studies disclosing funding sources did not change (65% vs. 65%, P = 0.939). Adherence to recommended practices was greater in more experienced journals, and roughly equal in industry versus non-industry-funded analyses. The data suggest an impact in methodological practices used in US-based CUAs in accordance with recommendations of the USPCEHM. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to methodological and reporting practices in published CUAs is improving, although many studies still omit basic elements. Medical journals, particularly those with little experience publishing cost-effectiveness analyses, should adopt and enforce standard protocols for conducting and reporting CUAs.

Cost-utility analysis studies of depression management: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Depression is common, costly, treatable, and a major influence on quality of life. Cost-utility analysis combines costs with quantity and quality of life into a metric that is meaningful for studies of interventions or care strategies and is directly comparable to measures in other such studies. The objectives of this study were to identify published cost-utility analyses of depression screening, pharmacologic treatment, nonpharmacologic therapy, and care management; to summarize the results of these studies in an accessible format; to examine the analytic methods employed; and to identify areas in the depression literature that merit cost-utility analysis. METHOD: The authors selected articles regarding cost-utility analysis of depression management from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Characteristics of the publications, including study methods and analysis, were examined. Cost-utility ratios for interventions were arranged in a league table. RESULTS: Of the 539 cost-utility analyses in the registry, nine (1.7%) were of depression management. Methods for determining utilities and the source of the data varied. Markov models or cohort simulations were the most common analytic techniques. Pharmacologic interventions generally had lower costs per quality-adjusted life year than nonpharmacologic interventions. Psychotherapy alone, care management alone, and psychotherapy plus care management all had lower costs per quality-adjusted life year than usual care. Depression screening and treatment appeared to fall within the cost-utility ranges accepted for common nonpsychiatric medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on cost-utility analysis of depression management. High-quality cost-utility analysis should be considered for further research in depression management.