IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/63798.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

QALYs in cost-effectiveness analysis: an overview for cardiologists

Author

Listed:
  • Wouters, Olivier J.
  • Naci, Huseyin
  • Samani, Nilesh J

Abstract

In recent years, cost-effectiveness data have strongly influenced clinical practice guidelines for several cardiovascular treatments. Economic considerations are increasingly common as health systems are under mounting pressure to maximise value for money. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY)—an outcome measure that expresses the duration and quality of life—is the main pillar of cost-effectiveness analyses. It is widely used in assessments of the clinical and economic value of new cardiovascular treatments, but how the QALY is derived is often unclear to clinicians. In this article, we first explain how QALYs are defined and calculated. We then review a selected set of cost-effectiveness analyses of recently introduced cardiovascular treatments and outline how these studies derived their QALYs. Finally, we discuss the limitations of the QALY and how the presentation of the measure could be improved in cost-effectiveness studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Wouters, Olivier J. & Naci, Huseyin & Samani, Nilesh J, 2015. "QALYs in cost-effectiveness analysis: an overview for cardiologists," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63798, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:63798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63798/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Efthymiadou, Olina & Mossman, Jean & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 159-165.
    2. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    3. Panos Kanavos & Olivier Wouters & Aris Angelis & Panos Kanavos & Gilberto Montibeller, 2017. "Resource Allocation and Priority Setting in Health Care: A Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Problem of Value?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(s2), pages 76-83, March.
    4. Aris Angelis & Ansgar Lange & Panos Kanavos, 2018. "Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 123-152, January.
    5. Angelis, A. & Linch, M. & Montibeller, G. & Molina-Lopez, T. & Zawada, A. & Orzel, K. & Arickx, F. & Espin, J. & Kanavos, P., 2020. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. repec:bla:glopol:v:8:y:2017:i::p:76-83 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:63798. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.