Cost–utility analysis and otolaryngology

Association of Hair Loss With Health Utility Measurements Before and After Hair Transplant Surgery in Men and Women

Importance

Androgenetic alopecia is a highly prevalent condition across both sexes and can be surgically corrected through hair transplant. Health utility scores, which represent quantitative estimates of individual preferences for a given state of health, are a measure of health-related quality of life. The health utility scores for sex-specific alopecia and the posttransplant state have not previously been quantified.

Objective

To obtain health utility measurements for the objective assessment of sex-specific alopecia and hair transplant surgery and to analyze layperson perception of alopecia compared with other chronic health conditions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A prospective clinical study was conducted from August 1 to December 31, 2017, at the Harvard Decision Science Laboratory. Adult casual observers (n = 308) completed an internet-based health utility questionnaire. Health states were presented using still patient images and a description of 5 health states, including monocular blindness, binocular blindness, male alopecia, female alopecia, and male posttransplant state.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Health utility measures of sex-specific alopecia, posttransplant state, and monocular and binocular blindness were measured by visual analog scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), and time trade-off (TTO) in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Groups were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison.

Results

The 308 participants included 157 (51.0%) women with a mean (SD) age of 30.8 (13.5) years. Mean (SD) health utility measures included 0.85 (0.18) QALYs for the VAS, 0.93 (0.17) QALYs for the SG, and 0.93 (0.17) QALYs for the TTO in male alopecia; 0.83 (0.19) QALYs for the VAS, 0.92 (0.17) QALYs for the SG, and 0.91 (0.18) QALYs for the TTO in female alopecia; and 0.93 (0.11) QALYs for the VAS, 0.95 (0.15) QALYs for the SG, and 0.95 (0.16) QALYs for the TTO in a man in the posttransplant state. The mean (SD) health utility of monocular blindness was 0.76 (0.17) QALYs for the VAS, 0.87 (0.21) QALYs for the SG, and 0.86 (0.20) QALYs for the TTO. The health utility score for the posttransplant state was significantly improved compared with the health utility score for alopecia in both sexes (female VAS: +0.10 [95% CI, 0.06-0.14; P < .001]; male VAS, +0.08 [95% CI, 0.04-0.12; P < .001]). Hair loss in women and men demonstrated significantly lower QALYs on the VAS compared with the posttransplant state (female: -0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.06; P < .001]; male: -0.08 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.04; P < .001]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Alopecia has a meaningful negative influence on health utility measures in both sexes. Hair transplant surgery significantly increases health utility measures compared with untreated alopecia in both sexes as rated among layperson observers.

Level of Evidence

NA.

The complex interface between economy and healthcare: An introductory overview for clinicians

In a period of generalized economic crisis, it seems particularly appropriate to try to manage a continuing growing sector such as healthcare in the best possible way. The crucial aim of optimization of available healthcare resources is obtaining the maximum possible benefit with the minimum expenditure. This has important social implications, whether individual citizens or tax-funded national health services eventually have to pay the bill. The keyword here is efficiency, which means either, maximizing the benefit from a fixed sum of money, or minimizing the resources required for a defined benefit. In order to achieve these objectives, economic evaluation is a helpful tool. Five different types of economic evaluation exist in the health-care field: cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-consequences, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. The objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the principal methods used for economic evaluation in healthcare. Economic evaluation represents a starting point for the allocation of resources, the decision of the valuable investments and the division of budgets across different health programs. Moreover, economic evaluation allows the comparison of different procedures in terms of quality of life and life expectancy, bearing in mind that cost-effectiveness is only one of multiple facets in the decision making-process. Economic evaluation is important to critically evaluate clinical interventions and ensure that we are implementing the most cost-effective management protocols. Clinicians are called to fulfill the complex task of optimizing the use of resources, and, at the same time, improving the quality of healthcare assistance.