Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited

  • Practical Application
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3(5):309–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Brien BJ, Drummond MF, Labelle RJ, et al. In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care. 1994;32:150–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wakker P, Klaassen MP. Confidence intervals for cost/effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1995;4(5):373–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sacristan JA, Day SJ, Navarro O, et al. Use of confidence intervals and sample size calculations in health economic studies. Ann Pharmacother. 1995;29:719–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fieller EC. Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1954;16(2):175–85.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chaudhary MA, Stearns SC. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. Stat Med. 1996;15:1447–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Polsky D, Glick HA, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ. 1997;6:243–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7:723–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Meckley LM, Greenberg D, Cohen JT, et al. The adoption of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(3):314–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(3):212–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Weinstein MC, Zechhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ. 1973;2:147–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):71–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Raftery J. Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? No. BMJ. 2009;338:b185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Towse A. Should NICE’s threshold range for cost per QALY be raised? Yes. BMJ. 2009;338:b181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: a practical approach. Med Decis Making. 1985;5(2):157–77.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Briggs AH, Gray A. The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998;3(4):233–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2 Suppl.):S68–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10(8):779–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Heitjan DF, Moskowitz AJ, Whang W. Bayesian estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):191–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Barton GR, Briggs AH, Fenwick EA. Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value Health. 2008;11(5):886–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Löthgren M, Zethraeus N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2000;9(7):623–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Groot Koerkamp B, Hunink MG, Stijnen T, et al. Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):101–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fenwick E, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in the dock: case not proven? Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):93–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jakubczyk M, Kaminski B. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: caveats quantified. Health Econ. 2010;19(8):955–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sadatsafavi M, Najafzadeh M, Marra C. Technical note: acceptability curves could be misleading when correlated strategies are compared. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(3):306–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):257–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Al MJ, Feenstra TL, van Hout BA. Optimal allocation of resources over health care programmes: dealing with decreasing marginal utility and uncertainty. Health Econ. 2005;14(7):655–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Al MJ, Feenstra T, Brouwer WB. Decision makers’ views on health care objectives and budget constraints: results from a pilot study. Health Policy. 2004;70(1):33–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Arrow K, Lind A. Uncertainty and the evaluation of public investment decisions. Am Econ Rev. 1970;60:364–78.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Palmer S, Smith PC. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 2000;19(5):755–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Griffin SC, Claxton KP, Palmer SJ, et al. Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Health Econ. 2011;20(2):212–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):21–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoomans T, Fenwick EA, Palmer S, et al. Value of information and value of implementation: application of an analytic framework to inform resource allocation decisions in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2):315–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Eckermann S, Willan AR. Presenting evidence and summary measures to best inform societal decisions when comparing multiple strategies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(7):563–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to prepare this paper. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to its content and opinions expressed are the author’s own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Maiwenn J. Al

Authors
  1. Maiwenn J. Al
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maiwenn J. Al.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Al, M.J. Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited. PharmacoEconomics 31, 93–100 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-012-0011-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-012-0011-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation