The authors examined 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 using two databases, the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry (cost-per-QALY gained studies), and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry (cost-per-DALY averted studies). Study characteristics that were analyzed included intervention type, sponsor, country, primary disease, and number of CEAs versus disease burden estimates for major conditions. The authors report that cost-per-QALY studies were most often about pharmaceuticals or interventions in high-income countries while cost-per-DALY studies tended to reflect infectious disease or other interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. Findings also suggest that certain diseases, conditions, and region combinations were potentially “under-studied” areas or “over studied” and identified potential opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.
Neumann, PJ, Anderson, JE, Panzer AD et al. Comparing the Cost-per-QALYs Gained and Cost-per-DALYs Averted Literatures. Gates Open Research 2018; 3, 5. http://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12786.1