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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlo Lazzaro, 2025. "Letter to the Editor: Lazzaro responds to Kennedy et al," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(1), pages 141-142, February.

    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. 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.
    5. 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..
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    13. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    14. Nikolai Mühlberger & Gaby Sroczynski & Artemisa Gogollari & Beate Jahn & Nora Pashayan & Ewout Steyerberg & Martin Widschwendter & Uwe Siebert, 2021. "Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1311-1344, November.
    15. Zachary Tirrell & Alicia Norman & Martin Hoyle & Sean Lybrand & Bonny Parkinson, 2024. "Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1287-1300, November.
    16. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.
    17. Cameron Morgan & Cam Donaldson & Emily Lancsar & Stavros Petrou & Lazaros Andronis, 2024. "Considerations Around the Inclusion of Children and Young People’s Time in Economic Evaluation: Findings from an International Delphi Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1267-1277, November.
    18. Dina Jankovic & Pedro Saramago Goncalves & Lina Gega & David Marshall & Kath Wright & Meena Hafidh & Rachel Churchill & Laura Bojke, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 377-388, May.
    19. Boshen Jiao & Zafar Zafari & Brian Will & Kai Ruggeri & Shukai Li & Peter Muennig, 2017. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Lowering Permissible Noise Levels Around U.S. Airports," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2020. "What is it going to be, TTO or SG? A direct test of the validity of health state valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1475-1481, November.

    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.