Differences in utility elicitation methods in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

Utilities for Complications Associated with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Utility values are used in health economic modeling analyses of type 2 diabetes (T2D) to quantify the effect of acute and long-term complications on quality of life (QoL). For accurate modeling projections, it is important that the utility values used are up to date, accurate and representative of the simulated model cohort.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify utility values for health states representing acute and chronic T2D-related complications including cardiovascular complications, stroke, renal disease, ophthalmic complications, neuropathy, diabetic foot, amputation and hypoglycemia. Searches were performed using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases and limited to articles published since 2010. Supplementary searches were performed to identify data published at congresses in 2019-2023.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were identified that reported utility values for T2D-related complications. The most frequently used elicitation method/instrument was the EQ-5D (n = 42 studies) followed by the Short Form-6 dimensions (n = 6), time tradeoff (n = 5), the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 or Mark 3 (n = 2), 15D (n = 1), visual analog scale (n = 1) and standard gamble (n = 1). Stroke and amputation were consistently associated with the largest decrements in QoL. There is a lack of published data that distinguishes between severity of several complications including renal disease, retinopathy and neuropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes-related complications can have a profound impact on QoL; therefore, it is important that these are captured accurately and appropriately in health economic models. Recently published utility values for diabetes-related complications that can be used to inform health economic models are summarized here.

A cloud-based medical device for predicting cardiac risk in suspected coronary artery disease: a rapid review and conceptual economic model

Background

The CaRi-Heart® device estimates risk of 8-year cardiac death, using a prognostic model, which includes perivascular fat attenuation index, atherosclerotic plaque burden and clinical risk factors.

Objectives

To provide an Early Value Assessment of the potential of CaRi-Heart Risk to be an effective and cost-effective adjunctive investigation for assessment of cardiac risk, in people with stable chest pain/suspected coronary artery disease, undergoing computed tomography coronary angiography. This assessment includes conceptual modelling which explores the structure and evidence about parameters required for model development, but not development of a full executable cost-effectiveness model.

Data sources

Twenty-four databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and EMBASE, were searched from inception to October 2022.

Methods

Review methods followed published guidelines. Study quality was assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results were summarised by research question: prognostic performance; prevalence of risk categories; clinical effects; costs of CaRi-Heart. Exploratory searches were conducted to inform conceptual cost-effectiveness modelling.

Results

The only included study indicated that CaRi-Heart Risk may be predictive of 8 years cardiac death. The hazard ratio, per unit increase in CaRi-Heart Risk, adjusted for smoking, hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, Duke index, presence of high-risk plaque features and epicardial adipose tissue volume, was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.06) in the model validation cohort. Based on Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool, this study was rated as having high risk of bias and high concerns regarding its applicability to the decision problem specified for this Early Value Assessment. We did not identify any studies that reported information about the clinical effects or costs of using CaRi-Heart to assess cardiac risk. Exploratory searches, conducted to inform the conceptual cost-effectiveness modelling, indicated that there is a deficiency with respect to evidence about the effects of changing existing treatments or introducing new treatments, based on assessment of cardiac risk (by any method), or on measures of vascular inflammation (e.g. fat attenuation index). A de novo conceptual decision-analytic model that could be used to inform an early assessment of the cost effectiveness of CaRi-Heart is described. A combination of a short-term diagnostic model component and a long-term model component that evaluates the downstream consequences is anticipated to capture the diagnosis and the progression of coronary artery disease.

Limitations

The rapid review methods and pragmatic additional searches used to inform this Early Value Assessment mean that, although areas of potential uncertainty have been described, we cannot definitively state where there are evidence gaps.

Conclusions

The evidence about the clinical utility of CaRi-Heart Risk is underdeveloped and has considerable limitations, both in terms of risk of bias and applicability to United Kingdom clinical practice. There is some evidence that CaRi-Heart Risk may be predictive of 8-year risk of cardiac death, for patients undergoing computed tomography coronary angiography for suspected coronary artery disease. However, whether and to what extent CaRi-Heart represents an improvement relative to current standard of care remains uncertain. The evaluation of the CaRi-Heart device is ongoing and currently available data are insufficient to fully inform the cost-effectiveness modelling.

Future work

A large (n = 15,000) ongoing study, NCT05169333, the Oxford risk factors and non-invasive imaging study, with an estimated completion date of February 2030, may address some of the uncertainties identified in this Early Value Assessment.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022366496.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135672) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2

A considerable debate persists in the literature about whose preferences should be considered in the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years. Some suggest considering only the preferences of the general population, while others advocate for the consideration of those of patients or a combination of both. This study aims to inform and measure the differences in health preferences between cancer patients and the general population in Quebec. A total of 60,976 observations representing the preferences of the general population for various health states were collected and used to develop a new value set using the SF-6Dv2. This value set was generated by combining 34,299 observations with time trade-off (TTO) and 26,677 observations with discrete choice experiment (DCE). Utility scores derived from this value set were compared to those of patients' preferences from a new value set in breast and colorectal patients for the SF-6Dv2. For both patients and the general population, the 'Pain' dimension was the highest contributor to the utility score. However, noticeable differences were observed in the estimates. Estimates of levels 2 and 3 were generally lower for cancer patients, while they were more likely to have greater estimates in severe levels. Significant differences in utility scores were also noticed with the general population showing higher mean utility scores for the same health states. These differences increased as the health states worsened. This study sheds light on the existing differences in preferences between cancer patients and the general population of Quebec for a better consideration in healthcare decision-making.

Time trade-off health state utility values for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to systematically review the literature on health utility in depression generated by time trade-off (TTO) method and to compare health state vignettes.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guideline in 2020 November (updated in 2022 March) in Pubmed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Random effect meta-analysis was conducted to pool vignette-based utility values of mild, moderate, and severe depression and to compare the preferences of depressed and nondepressed population.

RESULTS

Overall, 264 records were found, 143 screened by title and abstract after removing duplicates, 18 assessed full text, and 14 original publications included. Majority of the studies (n = 9) used conventional TTO method, and most of the studies (n = 8) applied 10-year timeframe. Eight studies evaluated self-experienced health (own-current depression). Six studies assessed vignette-based health states of remitted, mild, moderate, and severe depression, half of them applied McSad measure based health description. Altogether, 61 different utility values have been cataloged, mean utility of self-experienced depression states (n = 33) ranged between 0.89 (current-own depression) and 0.24 (worst experienced depression). Pooled utility estimates for vignette-based mild, moderate, and severe depression was 0.75, 0.66 and 0.50, respectively. Meta-regression showed that severe depression (β = -0.16) and depressed sample populations (β =  -0.13) significantly decrease vignette-based utility scores.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed extent heterogeneity both in TTO methodology and health state vignette development. Patient's perception of depression health states was worse than healthy respondents.

The Perspectives of Patients with Chronic Diseases and Their Caregivers on Self-Management Interventions: A Scoping Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Self-management (SM) interventions are supportive interventions systematically provided by healthcare professionals, peers, or laypersons to increase the skills and confidence of patients in their ability to manage chronic diseases. We had two objectives: (1) to summarise the preferences and experiences of patients and their caregivers (informal caregivers and healthcare professionals) with SM in four chronic diseases and (2) to identify and describe the relevant outcomes for SM interventions from these perspectives.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods scoping review of reviews. We searched three databases until December 2020 for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods reviews exploring patients' and caregivers' preferences or experiences with SM in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart failure (HF). Quantitative data were narratively synthesised, and qualitative data followed a three-step descriptive thematic synthesis. Identified themes were categorised into outcomes or modifiable factors of SM interventions.

RESULTS

We included 148 reviews covering T2DM (n = 53 [35.8%]), obesity (n = 20 [13.5%]), COPD (n = 32 [21.6%]), HF (n = 38 [25.7%]), and those with more than one disease (n = 5 [3.4%]). We identified 12 main themes. Eight described the process of SM (disease progression, SM behaviours, social support, interaction with healthcare professionals, access to healthcare, costs for patients, culturally defined roles and perceptions, and health knowledge), and four described their experiences with SM interventions (the perceived benefit of the intervention, individualised care, sense of community with peers, and usability of equipment). Most themes and subthemes were categorised as outcomes of SM interventions.

CONCLUSION

The process of SM shaped the perspectives of patients and their caregivers on SM interventions. Their perspectives were influenced by the perceived benefit of the intervention, the sense of community with peers, the intervention's usability, and the level of individualised care. Our findings can inform the selection of patient-important outcomes, decision-making processes, including the formulation of recommendations, and the design and implementation of SM interventions.

Valuation of Life With Disability: An International Comparison Study in Vietnam, Peru, and Haiti

The authors measured perceived quality of life for 4 disabilities among 450 adults in 3 resource-limited countries, measuring mean utilities using time trade-off, and surveying participants on 35 sociocultural characteristics to compare utilities for disabilities by country and examine associated sociocultural characteristics. Mean utilities were >0 for mild and moderate, but <0 for severe and profound. Utilities differed across countries (P = .007, .000, .017, .000 for mild, moderate, severe, profound, respectively). Vietnamese utilities correlated with residence (P = .03, moderate), education (P = .03, severe), and number of children (P = .03, moderate). Peruvian utilities correlated with education (P = .05, mild; P = .05, severe), experience with disability (P = .001, mild), gender (P = .04, moderate; P = .03, profound), number of hospitalizations (P = .04, severe). In Haiti, the only correlate was rejection (P = .02, moderate). Culture-specific variables differentially shape perceptions of disability in developing countries, thereby affecting cost-effectiveness calculations. Given substantially negative perceptions, reducing major disability would improve cost-effectiveness of health-policy decisions more than reducing mortality.

Estimating Long-Term Health Utility Scores and Expenditures for Cardiovascular Disease From the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

BACKGROUND

Long-term health utility scores and costs used in cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular disease prevention and management can be inconsistent, outdated, or invalid for the diverse population of the United States. Our aim was to develop a user friendly, standardized, publicly available code and catalog to derive more valid long-term values for health utility and expenditures following cardiovascular disease events.

METHODS

Individual-level Short Form-12 version 2 health-related quality of life and expenditure data were obtained from the pooled 2011 to 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys. We developed code using the R programming language to estimate preference-weighted Short Form-6D utility scores from the Short Form-12 for quality-adjusted life year calculations and predict annual health care expenditures. Result predictors included cardiovascular disease diagnosis (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure, cardiac dysrhythmias, angina pectoris, and peripheral artery disease), sociodemographic factors, and comorbidity variables.

RESULTS

The cardiovascular disease diagnoses with the lowest utility scores were heart failure (0.635 [95% CI, 0.615-0.655]), angina pectoris (0.649 [95% CI, 0.630-0.667]), and ischemic stroke (0.649 [95% CI, 0.635-0.663]). The highest annual expenditures were for heart failure ($20 764 [95% CI, $17 500-$24 027]), angina pectoris ($18 428 [95% CI, $16 102-$20 754]), and ischemic stroke ($16 925 [95% CI, $15 672-$20 616]).

CONCLUSIONS

The developed code and catalog may improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses by providing standardized methods for extracting long-term health utility scores and expenditures from Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, which are more current and representative of the US population than previous sources.

Challenges in synthesising cost-effectiveness estimates

Economic evaluations help decision-makers faced with tough decisions on how to allocate resources. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations are useful as they allow readers to assess whether interventions have been demonstrated to be cost effective, the uncertainty in the evidence base, and key limitations or gaps in the evidence base. The synthesis of systematic reviews of economic evaluations commonly takes a narrative approach whereas a meta-analysis is common step for reviews of clinical evidence (e.g. effectiveness or adverse event outcomes). As they are common objectives in other reviews, readers may query why a synthesis has not been attempted for economic outcomes. However, a meta-analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, costs, or health benefits (including quality-adjusted life years) is fraught with issues largely due to heterogeneity across study designs and methods and further practical challenges. Therefore, meta-analysis is rarely feasible or robust. This commentary outlines these issues, supported by examples from the literature, to support researchers and reviewers considering systematic review of economic evidence.