Literature DB >> 11833663

Comparison of health state utilities using community and patient preference weights derived from a survey of patients with HIV/AIDS.

Bruce R Schackman1, Sue J Goldie, Kenneth A Freedberg, Elena Losina, John Brazier, Milton C Weinstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The authors compare health state utilities derived from a national survey of patients with HIV/AIDS to represent community-based preferences with utilities derived from the same survey representing patient preferences; explore the relationships between these utilities and the dimensions of the SF-6D health state classification; and examine the implications of differences in the source of utilities for a cost-effectiveness analysis of early treatment of patients with HIV/AIDS.
METHODS: The authors derived community-based standard gamble (SG) utilities using an algorithm developed for the SF-6D health state classification system. The authors derived patient SG utilities from HIV/AIDS patient rating scale self-assessments using a power transformation. Data were from the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study, a probability sample of 2864 HIV-infected adults receiving care in the United States in 1996.
RESULTS: Patient SG utilities were higher than community SG utilities by 4% to 9% (0.979 vs. 0.937, 0.910 vs. 0.841, and 0.845 vs. 0.778; P < 0.001 for all comparisons). In regression analyses, patient SG utilities were less influenced by physical functioning, pain, and mental health dimensions of the SF-6D. The base case results of a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing early antiretroviral therapy to deferred therapy were unaffected by the choice between community ($20,100 per quality-adjusted life year) and patient ($18,400 per quality-adjusted life year) perspectives. The impact of the choice of utilities remained small in sensitivity analyses that varied the influence of treatment side effects on utilities and the initial symptom status of patients.
CONCLUSION: There are differences between community and patient utilities for HIV/AIDS health states, although even when treatment side effects are important, these differences may not affect cost-effectiveness ratios.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11833663     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  46 in total

1.  The cost-effectiveness of a modestly effective HIV vaccine in the United States.

Authors:  Elisa F Long; Douglas K Owens
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 3.641

2.  How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions?

Authors:  Bruce R Schackman; Heather Taffet Gold; Patricia W Stone; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in protease inhibitor-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK.

Authors:  Karen Moeremans; Lieven Annemans; Mickael Löthgren; Gabriele Allegri; Veronique Wyffels; Lindsay Hemmet; Karin Caekelbergh; Erik Smets
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive, protease inhibitor-resistant, HIV-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK.

Authors:  Karen Moeremans; Lindsay Hemmett; Jonas Hjelmgren; Gabriele Allegri; Erik Smets
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in the USA.

Authors:  Josephine Mauskopf; Anita Brogan; Silas Martin; Erik Smets
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Knut Stavem; Stig S Frøland; Kjell B Hellum
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  The REVAMP trial to evaluate HIV resistance testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a case study in clinical trial design in resource limited settings to optimize effectiveness and cost effectiveness estimates.

Authors:  Mark J Siedner; Mwebesa B Bwana; Mahomed-Yunus S Moosa; Michelle Paul; Selvan Pillay; Suzanne McCluskey; Isaac Aturinda; Kevin Ard; Winnie Muyindike; Pravikrishnen Moodley; Jaysingh Brijkumar; Tamlyn Rautenberg; Gavin George; Brent Johnson; Rajesh T Gandhi; Henry Sunpath; Vincent C Marconi
Journal:  HIV Clin Trials       Date:  2017-07-18

8.  The long-term benefits of genotypic resistance testing in patients with extensive prior antiretroviral therapy: a model-based approach.

Authors:  Y Yazdanpanah; M Vray; J Meynard; E Losina; M C Weinstein; L Morand-Joubert; S J Goldie; H E Hsu; R P Walensky; C Dalban; P E Sax; P M Girard; K A Freedberg
Journal:  HIV Med       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.180

9.  Potential risks and benefits of HIV treatment simplification: a simulation model of a proposed clinical trial.

Authors:  Bruce R Schackman; Callie A Scott; Paul E Sax; Elena Losina; Timothy J Wilkin; John E McKinnon; Susan Swindells; Milton C Weinstein; Kenneth A Freedberg
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 9.079

10.  The cost and incidence of prescribing errors among privately insured HIV patients.

Authors:  Fred J Hellinger; William E Encinosa
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.