IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v25y2024i8d10.1007_s10198-023-01663-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Kennedy

    (University of British Columbia)

  • Gurkaran Sarohia

    (University of Alberta)

  • Dominik Podbielski

    (University of Saskatchewan)

  • Simon Pickard

    (University of Illinois Chicago)

  • Jean-Eric Tarride

    (McMaster University)

  • Feng Xie

    (McMaster University)

Abstract

Importance Describing the characteristics and sources of health state utility values and reporting practice in the literature of cost-utility analyses facilitates an understanding of the level of the transparency, validity, and generalizability of cost-utility analyses. Improving the quality of reporting will support investigators in describing the incremental value of emerging glaucoma interventions. Objective To describe the state of practice among published glaucoma cost-utility analysis studies, focusing on valuation of health and the quality of reporting. Evidence review We searched several databases including Medline, CINHAL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Biosis previews, the Health Economic Evaluations Database, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We included full-text, English, published cost-utility analyses of glaucoma interventions with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary outcome measure to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios. Excluded studies were non-English language, reviews, editorials, protocols, or other types of economic studies (cost–benefit, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness). Study characteristics, operational definitions of glaucoma health states and health state utilities were extracted. The original source of the health utility was reviewed to determine the scale of measurement and the source of preference weighting. Items from the Systematic Review of Utilities for Cost-Effectiveness (SpRUCE checklist) were used to assess the reporting and quality of health utilities in glaucoma CUA. Findings 43 CUAs were included, with 11 unique sources of health utilities. A wide range of health utilities for the same Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson glaucoma health states were reported; ocular hypertension (0.84–0.95), mild (0.68–0.94), moderate (0.57–0.92), advanced (0.58–0.88), severe/blind (0.46–0.76), and bilateral blindness (0.26–0.5). Most studies reported the basis for using health utilities (34, 79%) and any assumptions or adjustments applied to the health utilities (22, 51%). Few studies reported a framework for assessing the relevance of health utilities to a decision context (8, 19%). Even fewer (3, 7%) applied a systematic search strategy to identify health utilities and used a structured assessment of quality for inclusion. Overall, reporting has not improved over time. Conclusions and relevance This review describes that few CUAs describe important rationale for using health state utility values. Including additional details on the search, appraisal, selection, and inclusion process of health utility values improves transparency, generalizability and supports the assessment of the validity of study conclusions. Future investigations should aim to use health utilities on the same scale of measurement across health states and consider the source and relevance to the decision context/purpose of conducting that cost-utility study.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Kennedy & Gurkaran Sarohia & Dominik Podbielski & Simon Pickard & Jean-Eric Tarride & Feng Xie, 2024. "Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1417-1435, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01663-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01663-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-023-01663-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-023-01663-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tessa Peasgood & Suzy Paisley, 2017. "The Identification, Review and Synthesis of Health State Utility Values from the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-55, December.
    2. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq, 2017. "The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 77-88, December.
    3. Seulggie Choi & Jin A Choi & Jin Woo Kwon & Sang Min Park & Donghyun Jee, 2018. "Utility values for glaucoma patients in Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Roberta Ara & Tessa Peasgood & Clara Mukuria & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi-Zouraq & Suzy Paisley & Tracey Young & Ben Hout & John Brazier, 2017. "Sourcing and Using Appropriate Health State Utility Values in Economic Models in Health Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 7-9, December.
    5. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    6. Jose Bartelt-Hofer & Steffen Flessa, 2020. "Authors’ Reply to Salamanca: “Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma: Decision Analytic Modeling Insights”," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 551-552, September.
    7. Jose Bartelt-Hofer & Lilia Ben-Debba & Steffen Flessa, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: Decision Analytic Modeling Insights," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-12, March.
    8. Sera Thomas & William Hodge & Monali Malvankar-Mehta, 2015. "The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Teleglaucoma Screening Device," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    9. Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Clara Mukuria, 2017. "The Use of Mapping to Estimate Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 57-66, December.
    10. Michelle Orme & Annabel Boler, 2006. "Prostaglandin Analogues for the Treatment of Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 743-750, August.
    11. Kaspar Nieland & Antoine Labbé & Cedric Schweitzer & Gaetan Gicquel & Joris Kleintjens & Amrita Ostawal & Maarten Treur & Heather Falvey, 2021. "A cost-effectiveness analysis of iStent inject combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-12, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    2. Lin Li & J L (Hans) Severens & Olena Mandrik, 2019. "Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Jonathan Karnon, 2017. "Heath State Utility Values for Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-3, December.
    4. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    5. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    6. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Boniface Oyugi & Olena Nizalova & Sally Kendall & Stephen Peckham, 2024. "Does a free maternity policy in Kenya work? Impact and cost–benefit consideration based on demographic health survey data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 77-89, February.
    9. Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi & Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte & Gian Luca Tanna & Rachel D. Eckford & Yan Feng & Michela Meregaglia & Tessa Peasgood & Stavros Petrou & Jasper Ubels & Michael Schlander, 2024. "Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 767-782, July.
    10. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.
    11. Etienne Nédellec & Judith Pineau & Patrice Prognon & Nicolas Martelli, 2018. "Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 793-802, December.
    12. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    13. Hensher, Martin & Canny, Ben & Zimitat, Craig & Campbell, Julie & Palmer, Andrew, 2020. "Health care, overconsumption and uneconomic growth: A conceptual framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    14. Dongzhe Hong & Lei Si & Minghuan Jiang & Hui Shao & Wai-kit Ming & Yingnan Zhao & Yan Li & Lizheng Shi, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 777-818, June.
    15. Werner Brouwer & Kaya Verbooy & Renske Hoefman & Job Exel, 2023. "Production Losses due to Absenteeism and Presenteeism: The Influence of Compensation Mechanisms and Multiplier Effects," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(9), pages 1103-1115, September.
    16. Simon Pol & Paula Rojas Garcia & Fernando Antoñanzas Villar & Maarten J. Postma & Antoinette D. I. Asselt, 2021. "Health-Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1355-1363, December.
    17. Aileen R. Neilson & Gareth T. Jones & Gary J. Macfarlane & Ejaz MI Pathan & Paul McNamee, 2022. "Generating EQ-5D-5L health utility scores from BASDAI and BASFI: a mapping study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis using longitudinal UK registry data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1357-1369, November.
    18. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Valentina Cambiano & Andrew Phillips & Mark J Sculpher, 2018. "Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies—The example of viral load informed differentiated care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    19. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    20. Omar B. Da'ar & Abdi A. Gele, 2023. "Tuberculosis in a weak health system, conflict and fragile zone: The monetary value of human lives lost associated with deaths of persons older than 14 years in Somalia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 53-68, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01663-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.