IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v26y2008i11p925-935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis

Author

Listed:
  • Hirsch Ruchlin
  • Ralph Insinga

Abstract

The objective of this review was to describe the performance of health-utility measures in valuing the quality-of-life (QOL) impact of changes in osteoarthritis (OA)-related chronic pain when administered within a clinical trial setting. Because the collection of utility data within a clinical trial is not always feasible in the development of health economic models, utility data from prior non-randomised studies conducted among patients with OA were also summarized. We conducted a literature review using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases. We selected studies employing validated direct and multiattribute measures of health utility: the standard gamble, time trade-off, EuroQol index, Health Utilities Index, SF-6D, 15D and the Assessment of Quality of Life measure. We identified four randomized controlled trials and 17 observational studies. The results of prior clinical trials in which these health utility measures were used in evaluating OA are summarized and attributes of the utility measures such as the clinical importance and statistical significance of the results obtained are noted. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the utility measure to changes in co-administered non-utility based measures of health-related quality of life (e.g. visual analogue scale for pain, WOMAC™) are also reported. Five findings emerged. First, the EQ-5D system was the most widely used metric to derive utilities. Second, for whatever utility measure was used, reported mean utilities for patient groups spanned a rather wide range of values across studies, potentially reflecting variation in illness severity, patient co-morbidities and/or patient treatment. Third, when studies reported more than one utility-based statistic, the utility valuations frequently differed by measure, suggesting that the choice of metric can potentially have an effect on QALY calculations. However, there was no consistent pattern as to which measure yielded the highest and lowest utility valuations. Fourth, changes in health-related QOL (HR-QOL) and utility measures displayed the expected relationships. When HR-QOL declined, the utility values also moved in this direction. The reverse was also true. In some instances, statistically significant changes in QOL measures were not mirrored by statistically significant changes in utility measures, suggesting that some studies may have been underpowered for the latter purpose. Finally, the body of clinical trial-based utility literature in OA was found to be relatively modest, with considerably more observational studies collecting utility data. Based on the limited number of trial-based health-utility evaluations in OA to date, there can potentially be divergent findings with respect to clinical and statistical significance of changes in utility measures and corresponding measures of health status. Analysts should carefully evaluate issues of statistical power and clinical sensitivity in utilizing these measures in clinical trials of OA interventions. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2008

Suggested Citation

  • Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:26:y:2008:i:11:p:925-935
    DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826110-00005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/00019053-200826110-00005
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/00019053-200826110-00005?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. Dennis G. Fryback & Erik J. Dasbach & Ronald Klein & Barbara E.K. Klein & Norma Dorn & Kathy Peterson & Patrica A. Martin, 1993. "The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(2), pages 89-102, June.
    2. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    3. Chaim M. Bell & Richard H. Chapman & Patricia W. Stone & Eileen A. Sandberg & Peter J. Neumann, 2001. "An Off-the-Shelf Help List," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 288-294, August.
    4. Dennis G. Fryback & William F. Lawrence & Patricia A. Martin & Ronald Klein & Barbara E.K. Klein, 1997. "Predicting Quality of Well-being Scores from the SF-36," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 1-9, February.
    5. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    6. Nord, Erik, 1993. "Unjustified use of the quality of well-being scale in priority setting in Oregon," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 45-53, April.
    7. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    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. J. Tilford & Nalin Payakachat & Erica Kovacs & Jeffrey Pyne & Werner Brouwer & Todd Nick & Jayne Bellando & Karen Kuhlthau, 2012. "Preference-Based Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 661-679, August.

    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. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    2. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    3. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Hildegard Seidl & Matthias Hunger & Reiner Leidl & Christa Meisinger & Rupert Wende & Bernhard Kuch & Rolf Holle, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: results from the KORINNA study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 671-681, July.
    5. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    6. Julie A. Campbell & Andrew J. Palmer & Alison Venn & Melanie Sharman & Petr Otahal & Amanda Neil, 2016. "A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 311-322, August.
    7. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    8. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    9. Raymond Oppong & Billingsley Kaambwa & Jacqueline Nuttall & Kerenza Hood & Richard Smith & Joanna Coast, 2013. "The impact of using different tariffs to value EQ-5D health state descriptions: an example from a study of acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in seven countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 197-209, April.
    10. Hans-Helmut König & Oliver Günther & Matthias Angermeyer & Christiane Roick, 2009. "Utility Assessment in Patients with Mental Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 405-419, May.
    11. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Buckingham, Ken J. & Devlin, Nancy Joy, 2009. "A note on the nature of utility in time and health and implications for cost utility analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 362-367, January.
    14. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    15. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond & Anthony Scott, 2013. "Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 163-171, February.
    16. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    17. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    19. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    20. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pharme:v:26:y:2008:i:11:p:925-935. 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.