Literature DB >> 22999149

Using health state utility values in models exploring the cost-effectiveness of health technologies.

Roberta Ara1, Allan Wailoo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To improve comparability of economic data used in decision making, some agencies recommend that a particular instrument should be used to measure health state utility values (HSUVs) used in decision-analytic models. The methods used to incorporate HSUVs in models, however, are often methodologically poor and lack consistency. Inconsistencies in the methodologies used will produce discrepancies in results, undermining policy decisions informed by cost per quality-adjusted life-years.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the current evidence base relating to populating decision-analytic models with HSUVs.
FINDINGS: Research exploring suitable methods to accurately reflect the baseline or counterfactual HSUVs in decision-analytic models is limited, and while one study suggested that general population data may be appropriate, guidance in this area is poor. Literature describing the appropriateness of different methods used to estimate HSUVs for combined conditions is growing, but there is currently no consensus on the most appropriate methodology. While exploratory analyses suggest that a statistical regression model might improve accuracy in predicted values, the models require validation and testing in external data sets. Until additional research has been conducted in this area, the current evidence suggests that the multiplicative method is the most appropriate technique. Uncertainty in the HSUVs used in decision-analytic models is rarely fully characterized in decision-analytic models and is generally poorly reported.
CONCLUSIONS: A substantial volume of research is required before definitive detailed evidence-based practical advice can be provided. As the methodologies used can make a substantial difference to the results generated from decision-analytic models, the differences and lack of clarity and guidance will continue to lead to inconsistencies in policy decision making.
Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22999149     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.003

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


  20 in total

1.  Do Pills Have No Ills? Capturing the Impact of Direct Treatment Disutility.

Authors:  Alexander Thompson; Bruce Guthrie; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies.

Authors:  Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Laura Bojke; Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Association between knee symptoms, change in knee symptoms over 6-9 years, and SF-6D health state utility among middle-aged Australians.

Authors:  Ambrish Singh; Julie A Campbell; Alison Venn; Graeme Jones; Leigh Blizzard; Andrew J Palmer; Terence Dwyer; Flavia Cicuttini; Changhai Ding; Benny Antony
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in German women with a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation.

Authors:  Dirk Müller; Marion Danner; Kerstin Rhiem; Björn Stollenwerk; Christoph Engel; Linda Rasche; Lisa Borsi; Rita Schmutzler; Stephanie Stock
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-04-05

Review 5.  Assessing quality-of-life outcomes in cardiovascular clinical research.

Authors:  Daniel B Mark
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 32.419

6.  The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration.

Authors:  Stavros Petrou; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Helen Dakin; Louise Longworth; Mark Oppe; Robert Froud; Alastair Gray
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Prevalence, burden of disease, and lost in health state utilities attributable to chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain in Chile.

Authors:  Pedro Zitko; Norberto Bilbeny; Carlos Balmaceda; Tomas Abbott; Cesar Carcamo; Manuel Espinoza
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 8.  Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values?

Authors:  Tessa Peasgood; John Brazier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Different Diseases Measured With the EQ-5D-5L: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ting Zhou; Haijing Guan; Luying Wang; Yao Zhang; Mingjun Rui; Aixia Ma
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-06-29

10.  Quality of life impact of mental health conditions in England: results from the adult psychiatric morbidity surveys.

Authors:  Jennifer Roberts; Pamela Lenton; Anju D Keetharuth; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.