OBJECTIVES: In the United Kingdom (UK), chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) makes up 40 % of all leukaemias in patients over 65 years. The study objective was to obtain societal preferences in the UK for "progression-free" and "progressive" states of late-stage CLL, refractory to current first and second line regimens. Preferences were also obtained for selected treatment-related adverse events (AEs). METHODS: A utility elicitation study, using the time trade-off (TTO) method, was conducted by face-to-face interviews with 110 subjects for a baseline disease state (before treatment), three primary disease states [progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment responder, PFS and treatment non-responder and disease progression], and 4 AE sub-states (PFS responder with thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and infection, and PFS non-responder with infection). TTO scores were converted into utility values, and disutilities were calculated for AEs. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were obtained. RESULTS: The primary disease state mean TTO utility scores were: baseline: 0.549; PFS response: 0.671; PFS non-response: 0.394; and progression: 0.214. The mean TTO utility (disutility) scores for the AEs were: PFS response with thrombocytopenia, 0.563 (-0.108), neutropenia, 0.508 (-0.163), and infection, 0.476 (-0.195); PFS non-response with infection, 0.333 (-0.061). The VAS results were in line with the TTO results. CONCLUSIONS: The utility was higher for the PFS state than baseline, but decreased below baseline in non-response and disease progression states. AEs had an impact on utility within the PFS response state. The severe infection AE had a greater impact on utilities for the responding to treatment state compared to the non-responder state.
OBJECTIVES: In the United Kingdom (UK), chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) makes up 40 % of all leukaemias in patients over 65 years. The study objective was to obtain societal preferences in the UK for "progression-free" and "progressive" states of late-stage CLL, refractory to current first and second line regimens. Preferences were also obtained for selected treatment-related adverse events (AEs). METHODS: A utility elicitation study, using the time trade-off (TTO) method, was conducted by face-to-face interviews with 110 subjects for a baseline disease state (before treatment), three primary disease states [progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment responder, PFS and treatment non-responder and disease progression], and 4 AE sub-states (PFS responder with thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and infection, and PFS non-responder with infection). TTO scores were converted into utility values, and disutilities were calculated for AEs. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were obtained. RESULTS: The primary disease state mean TTO utility scores were: baseline: 0.549; PFS response: 0.671; PFS non-response: 0.394; and progression: 0.214. The mean TTO utility (disutility) scores for the AEs were: PFS response with thrombocytopenia, 0.563 (-0.108), neutropenia, 0.508 (-0.163), and infection, 0.476 (-0.195); PFS non-response with infection, 0.333 (-0.061). The VAS results were in line with the TTO results. CONCLUSIONS: The utility was higher for the PFS state than baseline, but decreased below baseline in non-response and disease progression states. AEs had an impact on utility within the PFS response state. The severe infection AE had a greater impact on utilities for the responding to treatment state compared to the non-responder state.
Authors: Jennifer M Stephens; Paola Gramegna; Benjamin Laskin; Marc F Botteman; Chris L Pashos Journal: Am J Ther Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.688
Authors: William G Wierda; Thomas J Kipps; Jirí Mayer; Stephan Stilgenbauer; Cathy D Williams; Andrzej Hellmann; Tadeusz Robak; Richard R Furman; Peter Hillmen; Marek Trneny; Martin J S Dyer; Swami Padmanabhan; Magdalena Piotrowska; Tomas Kozak; Geoffrey Chan; Randy Davis; Nedjad Losic; Joris Wilms; Charlotte A Russell; Anders Osterborg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathleen M Beusterien; John Davies; Michael Leach; David Meiklejohn; Jessica L Grinspan; Alison O'Toole; Steve Bramham-Jones Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Michael Hallek; Bruce D Cheson; Daniel Catovsky; Federico Caligaris-Cappio; Guillaume Dighiero; Hartmut Döhner; Peter Hillmen; Michael J Keating; Emili Montserrat; Kanti R Rai; Thomas J Kipps Journal: Blood Date: 2008-01-23 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Constantine S Tam; Susan O'Brien; Susan Lerner; I Khouri; A Ferrajoli; S Faderl; M Browning; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Hagop Kantarjian; William G Wierda Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2007-10
Authors: C A Uyl-de Groot; S Y Okhuijsen; A Hagenbeek; P C Huijgens; G W van Imhoff; B Löwenberg; L F Verdonck; F F Rutten Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Mahdi Gharaibeh; Ali McBride; David S Alberts; Brian Erstad; Marion Slack; Nimer Alsaid; J Lyle Bootman; Ivo Abraham Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Keith Tolley; Joanne Noble-Longster; Sam Mettam; Rachel Hibbs; Matthew Cawson; Luke Stainer; Tom Snell; Ari Manuel Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.324
Authors: Gabriel Tremblay; Clemence Cariou; Christian Recher; Mike Dolph; Patricia Brandt; Anne-Sandrine Blanc; Anna Forsythe Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2020-01-22
Authors: Uwe Pelzer; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Davide Melisi; Antonio Cubillo; Daniel D Von Hoff; Andrea Wang-Gillam; Li-Tzong Chen; Jens T Siveke; Yin Wan; Caitlyn T Solem; Marc F Botteman; Yoojung Yang; Floris A de Jong; Richard A Hubner Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Anthony J Hatswell; Becky Pennington; Louisa Pericleous; Donna Rowen; Maximilian Lebmeier; Dawn Lee Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 3.186