IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v31y2013i2p93-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Maiwenn Al

Abstract

Since the introduction of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) in 1994, its use as a method to describe uncertainty around incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) has steadily increased. In this paper, first the construction and interpretation of the CEAC is explained, both in the context of modelling studies and in the context of cost-effectiveness (CE) studies alongside clinical trials. Additionally, this paper reviews the advantages and limitations of the CEAC. Many of the perceived limitations can be attributed to the practice of interpreting the CEAC as a decision rule while it was not developed as such. It is argued that the CEAC is still a useful tool in describing and quantifying uncertainty around the ICER, especially in combination with other tools such as plots on the CE plane and value-of-information analysis. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Maiwenn Al, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 93-100, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:31:y:2013:i:2:p:93-100
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-012-0011-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40273-012-0011-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-012-0011-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palmer, Stephen & Smith, Peter C., 2000. "Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 755-766, September.
    2. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2010. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – caveats quantified," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 955-963, August.
    3. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    4. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    2. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    3. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    4. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Klemen Naveršnik, 2015. "Output correlations in probabilistic models with multiple alternatives," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 133-139, March.
    6. Dirk Müller & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Afschin Gandjour, 2015. "Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 219-223, March.
    7. Martin Forster & Paolo Pertile, 2013. "Optimal decision rules for HTA under uncertainty: a wider, dynamic perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1507-1514, December.
    8. Simon Walker & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Steve Palmer, 2012. "Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions," Working Papers 077cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787, December.
    10. Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & Louise Longworth & Laura Bojke & Susan Griffin & Claire McKenna & Marta Soares & Eldon Spackman & Jihee Youn, 2011. "Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies," Working Papers 069cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Susan C. Griffin & Karl P. Claxton & Stephen J. Palmer & Mark J. Sculpher, 2011. "Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 212-224, February.
    12. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2009. "Globally optimal trial design for local decision making," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 203-216, February.
    13. N. J. Welton & A. E. Ades & D. M. Caldwell & T. J. Peters, 2008. "Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case‐study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(4), pages 807-841, October.
    14. Elizabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Andrew Briggs, 2000. "Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessent: the role of iterative decision analytic modelling," Working Papers 179chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. Andrew Willan, 2011. "Sample Size Determination for Cost-Effectiveness Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 933-949, November.
    16. Arthur E. Attema & Anna K. Lugnér & Talitha L. Feenstra, 2010. "Investment in antiviral drugs: a real options approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1240-1254, October.
    17. Iris Arends & Ute Bültmann & Willem van Rhenen & Henk Groen & Jac J L van der Klink, 2013. "Economic Evaluation of a Problem Solving Intervention to Prevent Recurrent Sickness Absence in Workers with Common Mental Disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    18. Lasserre, Pierre & Moatti, Jean-Paul & Soubeyran, Antoine, 2006. "Early initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapies for AIDS: Dynamic choice with endogenous and exogenous learning," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 579-598, May.
    19. Eldon Spackman & Stewart Richmond & Mark Sculpher & Martin Bland & Stephen Brealey & Rhian Gabe & Ann Hopton & Ada Keding & Harriet Lansdown & Sara Perren & David Torgerson & Ian Watt & Hugh MacPherso, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Acupuncture, Counselling and Usual Care in Treating Patients with Depression: The Results of the ACUDep Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-12, November.
    20. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.

    More about this item

    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:spr:pharme:v:31:y:2013:i:2:p:93-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.