Louise J Jackson1, Peter Auguste2, Nicola Low3, Tracy E Roberts4. 1. Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. 2. Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 3. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: t.e.roberts@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control sexually transmitted infections such as Chlamydia trachomatis are increasingly required to present their outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years using preference-based measurements of relevant health states. The objectives of this study were to critically evaluate how published cost-effectiveness studies have conceptualized and valued health states associated with chlamydia and to examine the primary evidence available to inform health state utility values (HSUVs). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with searches of six electronic databases up to December 2012. Data on study characteristics, methods, and main results were extracted by using a standard template. RESULTS: Nineteen economic evaluations of relevant interventions were included. Individual studies considered different health states and assigned different values and durations. Eleven studies cited the same source for HSUVs. Only five primary studies valued relevant health states. The methods and viewpoints adopted varied, and different values for health states were generated. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in the information available about HSUVs associated with chlamydia and its complications have implications for the robustness of economic evaluations in this area. None of the primary studies could be used without reservation to inform cost-effectiveness analyses in the United Kingdom. Future debate should consider appropriate methods for valuing health states for infectious diseases, because recommended approaches may not be suitable. Unless we adequately tackle the challenges associated with measuring and valuing health-related quality of life for patients with chlamydia and other infectious diseases, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area will remain problematic.
OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control sexually transmitted infections such as Chlamydia trachomatis are increasingly required to present their outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years using preference-based measurements of relevant health states. The objectives of this study were to critically evaluate how published cost-effectiveness studies have conceptualized and valued health states associated with chlamydia and to examine the primary evidence available to inform health state utility values (HSUVs). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with searches of six electronic databases up to December 2012. Data on study characteristics, methods, and main results were extracted by using a standard template. RESULTS: Nineteen economic evaluations of relevant interventions were included. Individual studies considered different health states and assigned different values and durations. Eleven studies cited the same source for HSUVs. Only five primary studies valued relevant health states. The methods and viewpoints adopted varied, and different values for health states were generated. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in the information available about HSUVs associated with chlamydia and its complications have implications for the robustness of economic evaluations in this area. None of the primary studies could be used without reservation to inform cost-effectiveness analyses in the United Kingdom. Future debate should consider appropriate methods for valuing health states for infectious diseases, because recommended approaches may not be suitable. Unless we adequately tackle the challenges associated with measuring and valuing health-related quality of life for patients with chlamydia and other infectious diseases, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area will remain problematic.
Authors: Yuan Zhang; Pablo Alonso Coello; Jan Brożek; Wojtek Wiercioch; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Elie A Akl; Joerg J Meerpohl; Waleed Alhazzani; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Rebecca L Morgan; Reem A Mustafa; John J Riva; Ainsley Moore; Juan José Yepes-Nuñez; Carlos Cuello-Garcia; Zulfa AlRayees; Veena Manja; Maicon Falavigna; Ignacio Neumann; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Nancy Santesso; Bram Rochwerg; Andrea Darzi; Maria Ximena Rojas; Yaser Adi; Claudia Bollig; Reem Waziry; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Jennifer Pillay; Ainsley Moore; Prinon Rahman; Gabriel Lewin; Donna Reynolds; John Riva; Guyléne Thériault; Brett Thombs; Brenda Wilson; Joan Robinson; Amanda Ramdyal; Geneviéve Cadieux; Robin Featherstone; Anne N Burchell; Jo-Anne Dillon; Ameeta Singh; Tom Wong; Marion Doull; Greg Traversy; Susan Courage; Tara MacGregor; Cydney Johnson; Ben Vandermeer; Lisa Hartling Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-26
Authors: Bernice M Hoenderboom; Michelle E van Willige; Jolande A Land; Jolein Pleijster; Hannelore M Götz; Jan E A M van Bergen; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Christian J P A Hoebe; Birgit H B van Benthem; Servaas A Morré Journal: Microorganisms Date: 2019-10-11
Authors: Sandra Montes-Olivas; Yaz Ozten; Martin Homer; Katy Turner; Christopher K Fairley; Jane S Hocking; Desiree Tse; Nicolas Verschueren van Rees; William C W Wong; Jason J Ong Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-07-27