Roberta Ara1, John E Brazier. 1. The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. r.m.ara@sheffield.ac.uk
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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