BACKGROUND: Attempts to estimate the cost effectiveness of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments in the past have relied on classifying ADHD patients as responders or non-responders to treatment. Responder status has been associated with a small gain in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) [or utility, as measured using the generic QOL measure EQ-5D] of 0.06 (on a scale from 0 being dead to 1.0 being full health). OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to develop and validate several ADHD-related health states, and to estimate utility values measured amongst the general public for those states and to re-estimate utility values associated with responder status. METHODS: Detailed qualitative interview data were collected from 20 young ADHD patients to characterize their HR-QOL. In addition, item-by-item clinical and HR-QOL data from a clinical trial were used to define and describe four health states (normal; borderline to mildly ill; moderately to markedly ill; and severely ill). ADHD experts assessed the content validity of the descriptions. The states were rated by 100 members of the UK general public using the time trade-off (TTO) interview and visual analog scale. Statistical mapping was also undertaken to estimate Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) utilities (i.e. response status) from Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) defined states. The mapping work estimated changes in utilities from study baseline to last visit for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤ 2 or ≤ 3. RESULTS: The validity of the four health states developed in this study was supported by in-depth interviews with ADHD experts and patients, and clinical trial data. TTO-derived utilities for the four health states ranged from 0.839 (CGI-S state 'normal') to 0.444 (CGI-S state 'severely ill'). From the mapping work, the change in utility for treatment responders was 0.19 for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤ 2 and 0.15 for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤ 3. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides utilities for different severity levels of ADHD estimated in a TTO study. This approach provides a more granular assessment of the impact of ADHD on HR-QOL than binary approaches employed in previous economic analyses. Change in utility for responders and non-responders at different levels of CGI-I was estimated, and thus these utilities may be used to compare health gains of different ADHD interventions.
BACKGROUND: Attempts to estimate the cost effectiveness of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments in the past have relied on classifying ADHDpatients as responders or non-responders to treatment. Responder status has been associated with a small gain in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) [or utility, as measured using the generic QOL measure EQ-5D] of 0.06 (on a scale from 0 being dead to 1.0 being full health). OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to develop and validate several ADHD-related health states, and to estimate utility values measured amongst the general public for those states and to re-estimate utility values associated with responder status. METHODS: Detailed qualitative interview data were collected from 20 young ADHDpatients to characterize their HR-QOL. In addition, item-by-item clinical and HR-QOL data from a clinical trial were used to define and describe four health states (normal; borderline to mildly ill; moderately to markedly ill; and severely ill). ADHD experts assessed the content validity of the descriptions. The states were rated by 100 members of the UK general public using the time trade-off (TTO) interview and visual analog scale. Statistical mapping was also undertaken to estimate Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) utilities (i.e. response status) from Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) defined states. The mapping work estimated changes in utilities from study baseline to last visit for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤ 2 or ≤ 3. RESULTS: The validity of the four health states developed in this study was supported by in-depth interviews with ADHD experts and patients, and clinical trial data. TTO-derived utilities for the four health states ranged from 0.839 (CGI-S state 'normal') to 0.444 (CGI-S state 'severely ill'). From the mapping work, the change in utility for treatment responders was 0.19 for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤ 2 and 0.15 for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤ 3. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides utilities for different severity levels of ADHD estimated in a TTO study. This approach provides a more granular assessment of the impact of ADHD on HR-QOL than binary approaches employed in previous economic analyses. Change in utility for responders and non-responders at different levels of CGI-I was estimated, and thus these utilities may be used to compare health gains of different ADHD interventions.
Authors: James J McGough; Sharon B Wigal; Howard Abikoff; John M Turnbow; Kelly Posner; Eliot Moon Journal: J Atten Disord Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.256
Authors: L E Arnold; D R Bozzolo; P Hodgkins; M McKay; L Beckett-Thurman; M Greenbaum; O Bukstein; A Patel Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Jan K Buitelaar; Timothy E Wilens; Shuyu Zhang; Yu Ning; Peter D Feldman Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Oscar G Bukstein; L Eugene Arnold; Jeanne M Landgraf; Paul Hodgkins Journal: Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Sarah L Shingler; Paul Swinburn; Andrew Lloyd; Jose Diaz; Robert Isbell; Stephanie Manson; Charlotte Benson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Donna C McCann; Margaret Thompson; David Daley; Joanne Barton; Cathy Laver-Bradbury; Judy Hutchings; David Coghill; Louise Stanton; Tom Maishman; Liz Dixon; Josh Caddy; Maria Chorozoglou; James Raftery; Edmund Sonuga-Barke Journal: Trials Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Louis S Matza; Mary K Devine; Virginia Sutton Haynes; Evan W Davies; Jacqueline M Kostelec; Foula Televantou; Jessica B Jordan Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Evelina A Zimovetz; Stephen M Beard; Paul Hodgkins; Matthias Bischof; Josephine A Mauskopf; Juliana Setyawan Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Tessa Peasgood; Anupam Bhardwaj; Katie Biggs; John E Brazier; David Coghill; Cindy L Cooper; David Daley; Cyril De Silva; Val Harpin; Paul Hodgkins; Amulya Nadkarni; Juliana Setyawan; Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Louis S Matza; Kristina S Boye; David H Feeny; Lee Bowman; Joseph A Johnston; Katie D Stewart; Kelly McDaniel; Jessica Jordan Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2015-11-26