Literature DB >> 21599035

Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.

Martina Garau1, Koonal K Shah, Anne R Mason, Qing Wang, Adrian Towse, Michael F Drummond.   

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to examine how well the QALY captures the health gains generated by cancer treatments, with particular focus on the methods for constructing QALYs preferred by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Data were obtained using a keyword search of the MEDLINE database and a hand search of articles written by leading researchers in the subject area (with follow up of the references in these articles). Key arguments were discussed and developed at an oncology workshop in September 2009 at the Office of Health Economics. Three key issues emerged. First, the EQ-5D, NICE's preferred measure of health-related quality of life (QOL) in adults, has been found to be relatively insensitive to changes in health status of cancer patients. Second, the time trade-off, NICE's preferred technique for estimating the values of health states, involves making assumptions that are likely to be violated in end-of-life scenarios. Third, the practice of using valuations of members of the general population, as recommended by NICE, is problematic because such individuals typically display a misunderstanding of what it is really like for patients to live with cancer. Because of the way in which it is constructed, the QALY shows important limitations in terms of its ability to accurately capture the value of the health gains deemed important by cancer patients. A research agenda for addressing these limitations is proposed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21599035     DOI: 10.2165/11588250-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  52 in total

Review 1.  EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group.

Authors:  R Rabin; F de Charro
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.709

2.  Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL.

Authors:  Ralph P Insinga; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Towards more consistent use of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  Mattias Neyt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Quantification of the potential impact of cost-effectiveness thresholds on dutch drug expenditures using retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Cornelis Boersma; Adriaan Broere; Maarten J Postma
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients.

Authors:  A Simon Pickard; Maria C De Leon; Thomas Kohlmann; David Cella; Sarah Rosenbloom
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  On the assessment of preferences for health and duration: maximal endurable time and better than dead preferences.

Authors:  Peep F M Stalmeier; Leida M Lamers; Jan J V Busschbach; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  A note on the nature of utility in time and health and implications for cost utility analysis.

Authors:  Ken J Buckingham; Nancy Joy Devlin
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?

Authors:  John Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Proportional heuristics in time tradeoff and conjoint measurement.

Authors:  P F Stalmeier; T G Bezembinder; I J Unic
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1996 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol derived from patients and the general public.

Authors:  D Polsky; R J Willke; K Scott; K A Schulman; H A Glick
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  26 in total

1.  Associations of cancer and other chronic medical conditions with SF-6D preference-based scores in Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Bryce B Reeve; Ashley Wilder Smith; Steven B Clauser
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Current challenges in health economic modeling of cancer therapies: a research inquiry.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Miller; Kathleen A Foley; Mason W Russell
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2014-05

3.  Testing alternative regression models to predict utilities: mapping the QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-6D.

Authors:  Admassu N Lamu; Jan Abel Olsen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version) : consensus and compromise.

Authors:  Seungjin Bae; Soook Lee; Eun Young Bae; Sunmee Jang
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Ayse Kuspinar; Nancy E Mayo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for the Management of Bone Metastases: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Lazaros Andronis; Ilias Goranitis; Sue Bayliss; Rui Duarte
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  [Pharmacoeconomics in uro-oncology: the concept of QALYs].

Authors:  B Poulsen Nautrup
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression.

Authors:  Søren S Morgen; Svend A Engelholm; Claus F Larsen; Rikke Søgaard; Benny Dahl
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

9.  Calibration of quality-adjusted life years for oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; Daniel J Sargent; Paul J Novotny; Paul A Decker; Randolph S Marks; Heidi Nelson
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 3.612

Review 10.  Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Moustapha Touré; Christian R C Kouakou; Thomas G Poder
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.