Gains in health utility associated with urinary catheter innovations

Understanding the properties of intermittent catheters to inform future development

Despite the extensive use of intermittent catheters (ICs) in healthcare, various issues persist for long-term IC users, such as pain, discomfort, infection, and tissue damage, including strictures, scarring and micro-abrasions. A lubricous IC surface is considered necessary to reduce patient pain and trauma, and therefore is a primary focus of IC development to improve patient comfort. While an important consideration, other factors should be routinely investigated to inform future IC development. An array of in vitro tests should be employed to assess IC's lubricity, biocompatibility and the risk of urinary tract infection development associated with their use. Herein, we highlight the importance of current in vitro characterisation techniques, the demand for optimisation and an unmet need to develop a universal 'toolkit' to assess IC properties.

Time trade-off study to establish utility decrements in individuals with a spinal cord injury who perform intermittent catheterisation

AIMS

To generate utility decrements for three attributes associated with catheterisation for individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI): the process of catheterisation, the physical impact of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and worry associated with hospitalisation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Health state vignettes comprising various levels of the three attributes were developed. Two cohorts of respondents, corresponding to people with SCIs and a sample broadly representative of the UK population, were presented with nine vignettes (three vignettes for the mild, moderate and severe health states in addition to a random set of six vignettes). It was assumed no or a nominal decrement was associated with the mild health state. Utility decrements were derived from analysing the data obtained from the online time trade-off (TTO). A proportion of the SCI cohort (n = 57) also completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire.

RESULTS

Utility decrements were generated using statistical models for the general population (n = 358), the SCI population (n = 48) and the two populations combined (merged model, n = 406). Results from the two cohorts showed minimal differences. For the merged model, SCI status was not statistically significant. All interaction terms, excluding SCI and the severe level of the physical attribute, were not statistically significant. Compared to the mild level, the greatest utility decrement calculated was the severe level of the emotional (worry) attribute (0.09, p < 0.001) for the SCI population. A significant decrement of 0.02 (p <0.001) was calculated for the moderate level of the emotional attribute for all models. The mean utility score for those with SCI having completed the EQ-5D-5L was 0.371.

LIMITATIONS

Modest sample size of respondents from the SCI population (n = 48).

CONCLUSIONS

Worry associated with hospitalisation had the greatest impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The catheterisation process, such as the lubrication and repositioning of the catheter, also impacted on patients' HRQoL.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.