Skip to main content
Log in

How Often Do Sensitivity Analyses for Economic Parameters Change Cost-Utility Analysis Conclusions?

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 costutility 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.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elixhauser A, Luce BR, Taylor WR, et al. Health care CBA/ CEA: an update on the growth and composition of the literature. Med Care 1993; 31 (7 Suppl.): JS1–149

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elixhauser A, Halpern M, Schmier J, et al. Health care CBA and CEA from 1991 to 1996: an updated bibliography. Med Care 1998; 36 (5 Suppl.): MS1–147

    Google Scholar 

  3. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (13): 716–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  5. Briggs A, Sculpher M. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies. Health Econ 1995 Sep-Oct; 4 (5): 355–71

  6. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  7. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, et al. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132 (12): 964–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4 (3): 225–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization?: tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992 Feb 15; 146 (4): 473–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations revisited. CMAJ 1993 Mar 15; 148 (6: 927–9

  11. Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003 Jul 28; 163 (14): 1637–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chapman RH, Berger M, Weinstein MC, et al. When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis? Boston (MA): Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schackman BR, Goldie SJ, Freedberg KA, et al. Comparison of health state utilities using community and patient preference weights derived from a survey of patients with HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making 2002 Jan-Feb; 22 (1): 27–38

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Richard Chapman, PhD for assistance with the cost-utility database and Kawai Oneda, M.P.H. for research assistance. Conduct of this study was funded by unrestricted support provided by the authors’ institutions. Funding for the original data collection effort to develop a database of cost-utility analyses was provided by a joint award from the National Science Foundation and Merck & Co., Inc. under the joint NSF/Private Research Opportunity Intitiative (SBR-9730448).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce R. Schackman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schackman, B.R., Gold, H.T., Stone, P.W. et al. How Often Do Sensitivity Analyses for Economic Parameters Change Cost-Utility Analysis Conclusions?. PharmacoEconomics 22, 293–300 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422050-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422050-00003

Keywords

Navigation