Literature DB >> 21669378

Using health state utility values from the general population to approximate baselines in decision analytic models when condition-specific data are not available.

Roberta Ara1, John E Brazier.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Decision analytic models in health care require baseline health-related quality of life data to accurately assess the benefits of interventions. The use of inappropriate baselines such as assuming the value of perfect health (EQ-5D = 1) for not having a condition may overestimate the benefits of some treatment and thus distort policy decisions informed by cost per quality adjusted life years thresholds.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine if data from the general population are appropriate for baseline health state utility values (HSUVs) when condition specific data are not available.
METHODS: Data from four consecutive Health Surveys for England were pooled. Self-reported health status and EQ-5D data were extracted and used to generate mean HSUVs for cohorts with or without prevalent health conditions. These were compared with mean HSUVs from all respondents irrespective of health status.
RESULTS: More than 45% of respondents (n = 41,174) reported at least one condition and almost 20% reported at least two. Our results suggest that data from the general population could be used to approximate baseline HSUVs in some analyses, but not all. In particular, HSUVs from the general population would not be an appropriate baseline for cohorts who have just one condition. In these instances, if condition specific data are not available, data from respondents who report they do not have any prevalent health condition may be more appropriate. Exploratory analyses suggest the decrement on health-related quality of life may not be constant across ages for all conditions and these relationships may be condition specific. Additional research is required to validate our findings.
Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21669378     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  29 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nintedanib Versus Pirfenidone in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in Belgium.

Authors:  C Rinciog; A Diamantopoulos; A Gentilini; B Bondue; C Dahlqvist; A Froidure; W A Wuyts; S Soulard
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2020-09

2.  Different strategies for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for lower-limb immobilisation after injury: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Abdullah Pandor; Daniel Horner; Sarah Davis; Steve Goodacre; John W Stevens; Mark Clowes; Beverley J Hunt; Tim Nokes; Jonathan Keenan; Kerstin de Wit
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

Authors:  Irina A Tikhonova; Nicola Huxley; Tristan Snowsill; Louise Crathorne; Jo Varley-Campbell; Mark Napier; Martin Hoyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  The cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy versus standard tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery for ovarian cancer risk reduction.

Authors:  Akila Subramaniam; Brett D Einerson; Christina T Blanchard; Britt K Erickson; Jeff Szychowski; Charles A Leath; Joseph R Biggio; Warner K Huh
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nintedanib in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in the UK.

Authors:  C Rinciog; M Watkins; S Chang; T M Maher; C LeReun; D Esser; A Diamantopoulos
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Amanda J Cross; Emma C Robbins; Kevin Pack; Iain Stenson; Paula L Kirby; Bhavita Patel; Matthew D Rutter; Andrew M Veitch; Brian P Saunders; Matthew Little; Alastair Gray; Stephen W Duffy; Kate Wooldrage
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 4.106

Review 7.  The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models.

Authors:  Roberta Ara; John Brazier; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Surgical fixation compared with cast immobilisation for adults with a bicortical fracture of the scaphoid waist: the SWIFFT RCT.

Authors:  Joseph Dias; Stephen Brealey; Liz Cook; Caroline Fairhurst; Sebastian Hinde; Paul Leighton; Surabhi Choudhary; Matthew Costa; Catherine Hewitt; Stephen Hodgson; Laura Jefferson; Kanagaratnam Jeyapalan; Ada Keding; Matthew Northgraves; Jared Palmer; Amar Rangan; Gerry Richardson; Nicholas Taub; Garry Tew; John Thompson; David Torgerson
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  A Comparative Health Utility Value Analysis of Outcomes for Patients Following Septorhinoplasty With Previous Nasal Surgery.

Authors:  Shekhar K Gadkaree; Jennifer C Fuller; Natalie S Justicz; Adeeb Derakhshan; Suresh Mohan; Phoebe K Yu; Robin W Lindsay
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 4.611

10.  Optimising health and economic impacts of COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation strategies in the WHO European Region.

Authors:  Yang Liu; Frank G Sandmann; Rosanna C Barnard; Carl A B Pearson; Roberta Pastore; Richard Pebody; Stefan Flasche; Mark Jit
Journal:  medRxiv       Date:  2021-07-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.