Cargando…

Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is a method for summarizing the uncertainty in estimates of cost-effectiveness. The CEAC, derived from the joint distribution of costs and effects, illustrates the (Bayesian) probability that the data are consistent with a true cost-effec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fenwick, Elisabeth, Marshall, Deborah A, Levy, Adrian R, Nichol, Graham
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16623946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-52
_version_ 1782129105965154304
author Fenwick, Elisabeth
Marshall, Deborah A
Levy, Adrian R
Nichol, Graham
author_facet Fenwick, Elisabeth
Marshall, Deborah A
Levy, Adrian R
Nichol, Graham
author_sort Fenwick, Elisabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is a method for summarizing the uncertainty in estimates of cost-effectiveness. The CEAC, derived from the joint distribution of costs and effects, illustrates the (Bayesian) probability that the data are consistent with a true cost-effectiveness ratio falling below a specified ceiling ratio. The objective of the paper is to illustrate how to construct and interpret a CEAC. METHODS: A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) randomized controlled trial with 4060 patients followed for 3.5 years. The target population was patients with atrial fibrillation who were 65 years of age or had other risk factors for stroke or death similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM. The intervention involved the management of patients with atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs (rhythm-control) compared with drugs that control heart rate (rate-control). Measurements of mean survival, mean costs and incremental cost-effectiveness were made. The uncertainty surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness was illustrated through a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: The base case point estimate for the difference in effects and costs between rate and rhythm-control is 0.08 years (95% CI: -0.1 years to 0.24 years) and -US$5,077 (95% CI: -$1,100 to -$11,006). The CEAC shows that the decision uncertainty surrounding the adoption of rate-control strategies is less than 1.7% regardless of the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio. Thus, there is very little uncertainty surrounding the decision to adopt rate-control compared to rhythm-control for patients with atrial fibrillation from a resource point of view. CONCLUSION: The CEAC is straightforward to calculate, construct and interpret. The CEAC is useful to a decision maker faced with the choice of whether or not to adopt a technology because it provides a measure of the decision uncertainty surrounding the choice.
format Text
id pubmed-1538588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-15385882006-08-10 Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation Fenwick, Elisabeth Marshall, Deborah A Levy, Adrian R Nichol, Graham BMC Health Serv Res Debate BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is a method for summarizing the uncertainty in estimates of cost-effectiveness. The CEAC, derived from the joint distribution of costs and effects, illustrates the (Bayesian) probability that the data are consistent with a true cost-effectiveness ratio falling below a specified ceiling ratio. The objective of the paper is to illustrate how to construct and interpret a CEAC. METHODS: A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) randomized controlled trial with 4060 patients followed for 3.5 years. The target population was patients with atrial fibrillation who were 65 years of age or had other risk factors for stroke or death similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM. The intervention involved the management of patients with atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs (rhythm-control) compared with drugs that control heart rate (rate-control). Measurements of mean survival, mean costs and incremental cost-effectiveness were made. The uncertainty surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness was illustrated through a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: The base case point estimate for the difference in effects and costs between rate and rhythm-control is 0.08 years (95% CI: -0.1 years to 0.24 years) and -US$5,077 (95% CI: -$1,100 to -$11,006). The CEAC shows that the decision uncertainty surrounding the adoption of rate-control strategies is less than 1.7% regardless of the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio. Thus, there is very little uncertainty surrounding the decision to adopt rate-control compared to rhythm-control for patients with atrial fibrillation from a resource point of view. CONCLUSION: The CEAC is straightforward to calculate, construct and interpret. The CEAC is useful to a decision maker faced with the choice of whether or not to adopt a technology because it provides a measure of the decision uncertainty surrounding the choice. BioMed Central 2006-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC1538588/ /pubmed/16623946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-52 Text en Copyright © 2006 Fenwick et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Debate
Fenwick, Elisabeth
Marshall, Deborah A
Levy, Adrian R
Nichol, Graham
Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation
title Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation
title_full Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation
title_fullStr Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation
title_full_unstemmed Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation
title_short Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation
title_sort using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16623946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-52
work_keys_str_mv AT fenwickelisabeth usingandinterpretingcosteffectivenessacceptabilitycurvesanexampleusingdatafromatrialofmanagementstrategiesforatrialfibrillation
AT marshalldeboraha usingandinterpretingcosteffectivenessacceptabilitycurvesanexampleusingdatafromatrialofmanagementstrategiesforatrialfibrillation
AT levyadrianr usingandinterpretingcosteffectivenessacceptabilitycurvesanexampleusingdatafromatrialofmanagementstrategiesforatrialfibrillation
AT nicholgraham usingandinterpretingcosteffectivenessacceptabilitycurvesanexampleusingdatafromatrialofmanagementstrategiesforatrialfibrillation