IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v28y2019i5p653-665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Frequentist and Bayesian meta‐regression of health state utilities for multiple myeloma incorporating systematic review and analysis of individual patient data

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony J. Hatswell
  • Darren Burns
  • Gianluca Baio
  • Frances Wadelin

Abstract

This analysis presents the results of a systematic review for health state utilities in multiple myeloma, as well as analysis of over 9,000 observations taken from registry and trial data. The 27 values identified from 13 papers are then synthesised in a frequentist nonparametric bootstrap model and a Bayesian meta‐regression. Results were similar between the frequentist and Bayesian models with low utility on disease diagnosis (approximately 0.55), raising to approximately 0.65 on first line treatment and declining slightly with each subsequent line. Stem cell transplant was also found to be a significant predictor of health‐related quality of life in both individual patient data and meta‐regression, with an increased utility of approximately 0.06 across different models. The work presented demonstrates the feasibility of Bayesian methods for utility meta‐regression, whilst also presenting an internally consistent set of data from the analysis of registry data. To facilitate easy updating of the data and model, data extraction tables and model code are provided as Data S1. The main limitations of the model relate to the low number of studies available, particularly in highly pretreated patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony J. Hatswell & Darren Burns & Gianluca Baio & Frances Wadelin, 2019. "Frequentist and Bayesian meta‐regression of health state utilities for multiple myeloma incorporating systematic review and analysis of individual patient data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 653-665, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:5:p:653-665
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3871
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3871?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samer A. Kharroubi & Richard Edlin & David Meads & Chantelle Browne & Julia Brown & Christopher McCabe, 2015. "Use of Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods to Estimate EQ-5D Utility Scores from EORTC QLQ Data in Myeloma for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 351-360, April.
    2. Tessa Peasgood & John Brazier, 2015. "Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1101-1105, November.
    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. Joseph Alvin Ramos Santos & Robert Grant & Gian Luca Di Tanna, 2024. "Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Health State Utility Values: A Tutorial with a Practical Application in Heart Failure," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 721-735, July.

    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. Alexina J. Mason & Manuel Gomes & James Carpenter & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Flexible Bayesian longitudinal models for cost‐effectiveness analyses with informative missing data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3138-3158, December.
    2. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:5:p:653-665. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.