Skip to main content Accessibility help

Complementing the net benefit approach: A new framework for Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis

  • Miguel Angel Negrín Hernández (a1), Francisco José Vázquez-Polo (a1), Francisco Javier Girón González-Torre (a2) and Elías Moreno Bas (a3)


Objectives: The aim of cost-effectiveness analysis is to maximize health benefits from a given budget, taking a societal perspective. Consequently, the comparison of alternative treatments or technologies is solely based on their expected effectiveness and cost. However, the expectation, or mean, poses important limitations as it might be a poor summary of the underlying distribution, for instance when the effectiveness is a categorical variable, or when the distributions of either effectiveness or cost present a high degree of asymmetry. Clinical variables often present these characteristics.

Methods: In this study, we present a framework for cost-effectiveness analysis based on the whole posterior distribution of effectiveness and cost.

Results: An application with real data is included to illustrate the analysis. Decision-making measures such as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental net-benefit, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, can also be defined under the new framework.

Conclusions: This framework overcomes limitations of the mean and offers complementary information for the decision maker.



Hide All
1. Al, MJ, van Hout, BA. A Bayesian approach to economic analyses of clinical trials: The case of Stenting versus Balloon Angioplasty. Health Econ. 2000;9:599609.
2. Briggs, AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 1999;8:257261.
3. Brock, DW. Ethical issues in the use of cost-effectiveness analysis for the priorization of health resources. In: Khushf, G, ed. Handbook of bioethics: Taking stock of the field from a philosophical perspective. Emeryville, CA: Springer-Verlag Telos; 2004.
4. Carpenter, C, Fischl, M, Hammer, S, et al. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in 1998: Updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel. JAMA. 1998;280:7886.
5. Elbasha, E. Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: The expected utility, moment-generating function approach. Health Econ. 2005;14:457470.
6. Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779787.
7. Gold, MR, Siegel, JE, Russell, LB, Weinstein, MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
8. Heitjan, DF, Moskowitz, AJ, William, W. Bayesian estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials. Health Econ. 1999;8:191201.
9. Hoch, JS, Rockx, MA, Krahn, A. Using the net benefit regression framework to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: An example using data from a trial of external loop recorders versus Holter monitoring for ambulatory monitoring of “community acquired” syncope. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:68.
10. Löthgren, M, Zethraeus, N. Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2000;9:623630.
11. Michiels, S, Piedbois, P, Burdett, S, et al. Meta-analysis when only the median survival times are known: A comparison with individual patient data results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:119125.
12. O'Brien, BJ, Sculpher, MJ. Building uncertainty into cost-effectiveness rankings: Portfolio risk-return tradeoffs and implications for decision rules. Med Care. 2001;38:460468.
13. O'Hagan, A. Research in elicitation. In: Upadhyay, SK, Singh, U, Dey, DK, eds. Bayesian statistics and its applications. New Delhi: Anamaya; 2006:375382.
14. O'Hagan, A, Forster, J. Kendall's Advanced theory of statistics. vol. 2B. Bayesian inference. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold; 2004.
15. O'Hagan, A, Stevens, JW. Bayesian methods for design and analysis of cost-effectiveness trials in the evaluation of health care technologies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11:469490.
16. O'Hagan, A, Stevens, JW. The probability of cost-effectiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:5.
17. O'Hagan, A, Stevens, JW, Montmartin, J. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis from clinical trial data. Stat Med. 2001;20:733753.
18. Pinto, JL, López, C, Badìa, X, Coma, A, et al. Análisis coste-efectividad del tratamiento antirretroviral de gran actividad en pacientes infectados por el VIH asintomáticos. Med Clin. 2000;114:6267.
19. Polsky, D, Glick, H, Willke, R, Schulman, K. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: A comparison of four methods. Health Econ. 1997;6:243252.
20. Spiegelhalter, DJ, Thomas, A, Best, NG, Lunn, D. Winbugs version 1.4 user manual. T. Rep., MRC Biostatistics Unit, 2002. (accessed September 2, 2009).
21. Stinnett, AA, Mullahy, J. Net health benefits: A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1993;18:S68S80.
22. Vanness, DJ, Mullahy, J. Perspectives on mean-based evaluation of health care. In: Jones AM, ed. Elgar companion to health economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2006:526536.
23. Wailoo, A, Roberts, J, Brazier, J, McCabe, C. Efficiency, equity and NICE clinical guidelines. BMJ. 2004;328:536537.
24. Willan, AR. On the probability of cost-effectiveness using data from randomized clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:8.
25. Zivin, JG. Cost-effectiveness analysis with risk aversion. Health Econ. 2001;10:499508.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Hernandez supplementary material
Supplementary tables and figures

 Word (619 KB)
619 KB

Complementing the net benefit approach: A new framework for Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis

  • Miguel Angel Negrín Hernández (a1), Francisco José Vázquez-Polo (a1), Francisco Javier Girón González-Torre (a2) and Elías Moreno Bas (a3)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed