Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
PharmacoEconomics
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 1/2017

01.12.2017 | Review Article

The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment

verfasst von: Donna Rowen, John Brazier, Roberta Ara, Ismail Azzabi Zouraq

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Sonderheft 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

A condition-specific preference-based measure (CSPBM) is a measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) that is specific to a certain condition or disease and that can be used to obtain the quality adjustment weight of the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for use in economic models. This article provides an overview of the role and the development of CSPBMs, and presents a description of existing CSPBMs in the literature. The article also provides an overview of the psychometric properties of CSPBMs in comparison with generic preference-based measures (generic PBMs), and considers the advantages and disadvantages of CSPBMs in comparison with generic PBMs. CSPBMs typically include dimensions that are important for that condition but may not be important across all patient groups. There are a large number of CSPBMs across a wide range of conditions, and these vary from covering a wide range of dimensions to more symptomatic or uni-dimensional measures. Psychometric evidence is limited but suggests that CSPBMs offer an advantage in more accurate measurement of milder health states. The mean change and standard deviation can differ for CSPBMs and generic PBMs, and this may impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CSPBMs have a useful role in HTA where a generic PBM is not appropriate, sensitive or responsive. However, due to issues of comparability across different patient groups and interventions, their usage in health technology assessment is often limited to conditions where it is inappropriate to use a generic PBM or sensitivity analyses.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Brazier JE, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(32):1–113.CrossRef
2.
Rowen D, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health. 2011;14(5):721–31.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Young TA, et al. Developing preference-based health measures: using Rasch analysis to generate health state values. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):907–17.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Lloyd A, et al. Health-related quality of life and health utilities in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a survey capturing experiences from a diverse sample of UK patients. Value Health. 2015;18:1152–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Young T, et al. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):253–65.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Stevens KJ, et al. The development of a preference-based measure of health in children with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153(2):372–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
8.
Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med. 2003;35(3):105–15.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Mavranezouli I, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation-outcome measure (CORE-OM): valuation of CORE-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(3):381–95.CrossRef
10.
King MT, Costa DSJ, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella DF, Fayers PM, Grimison P, Janda M, Kemmler G, Norman R, Pickard AS, Rowen D, Velikova G, Young TA, Viney R. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual. Life Res. 2016;25(3):625–36.
11.
Mukuria C, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for myelofibrosis from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the MF-SAF. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;18(6):846–55.CrossRef
12.
(FDA), U.D.o.H.a.H.S.F.a.D.A. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Maryland: FDA; 2009.
13.
Palfreyman S. The SPVU-5D: a preference-based measure of health related quality of life for use with venous leg ulceration. PRO Newsletter, 2012 (45 (Spring Issue)).
14.
Goodwin E, Green C. A systematic review of the literature on the development of condition-specific preference-based measures of health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:161–83.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Beusterien K, et al. Integrating preferences into health status assessment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: the ALS Utility Index. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord. 2005;6(3):169–76.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Versteegh MM et al. Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health. 2012 (Forthcoming).
17.
Young T, et al. The use of rasch analysis in reducing a large condition-specific instrument for preference valuation: the case of moving from AQLQ to AQL-5D. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(1):195–210.CrossRef
18.
Yang Y, et al. Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31:281–91.CrossRef
19.
Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella D, Costa DSJ, Fayers PM, Kemmler G, Peacock S, Pickard AS, Rowen D, Street D, Velikova G, Young TA, King MT. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual. Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49.
20.
Kularatna S, et al. Development of an EORTC-8D utility algorithm for Sri Lanka. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(3):361–70.CrossRef
21.
Petrillo J, Cairns J. Development of the EXACT-U: a preference-based measure to report COPD exacerbation utilities. Value Health. 2011;14:546–54.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mavranezouli I, et al. Using Rasch analysis to form plausible health states amenable to valuation: the development of the CORE-6D from a measure of common mental health problems (CORE-OM). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(3):321–33.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Rowen D, et al. Estimating preference-based single index measures for dementia using DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy. Value Health. 2012;15:346–56.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Mulhern B, et al. Improving the measurement of QALYs in Dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis. Value Health. 2012;15:323–33.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Mulhern B, Rowen D, Brazier J, Smith S, Romeo R. Development of DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U: generation of preference-based indices from DEMQOL and DEMQOL-PROXY for use in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(5).
26.
Sundaram M, et al. Estimation of a valuation function for a diabetes mellitus-specific preference-based measure of health the diabetes utility index (R). Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(3):201–16.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Sundaram M, et al. Rasch analysis informed the development of a classification system for a diabetes-specific preference-based measure of health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(8):845–56.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mulhern B, et al. The development of a QALY measure for epilepsy: NEWQOL-6D. Epilepsy Behav E&B. 2012;24(1):36–43.CrossRef
29.
Stolk EA, Busschbach J. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(4):363–71.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Kerr C, et al. Developing a utility index for the Aberrant behavior checklist (ABC-C) for fragile X syndrome. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:305–14.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Kind P, Macran S. Eliciting social preference weights for functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung health states. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23(11):1143–53.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Lamers LM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Buijt I. The use of disease-specific outcome measures in cost-utility analysis: The development of Dutch societal preference weights for the FACT-L scale. PharmacoEconomics. 2007;25(7):591–603.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Brazier JE, et al. Estimating a preference-based index for a menopause specific health quality of life questionnaire. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2005;3:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Yang Y, et al. Estimating a preference-based single index from the overactive bladder questionnaire. Value Health. 2009;12(1):159–66.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Choiu CF, et al. Development of the multi-attribute Paediatric Asthma Health Outcome Measure (PAHOM). Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(1):23–30.CrossRef
36.
Palmer CS, et al. Patient preferences and utilities for ‘off-time’ outcomes in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(7):819–27.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Tomlinson G, et al. Development and validation of a utility weighting function for the patient-oriented prostate utility scale (PORPUS). Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(1):11–30.CrossRef
38.
Krahn MR. Construction of the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS): A multiattribute health state classification system for prostate cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(9):920–30.CrossRefPubMed
39.
McKenna SP, et al. Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Montejo AL, et al. Estimation of a multiattribute utility function for the Spanish Version of the TooL Questionnaire. Value Health. 2011;14:564–70.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Bharmal M, Thomas J. Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the us general population. Value Health. 2006;9(4):262–71.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Finger RP, et al. Evaluation of a vision-related utility instrument: the German Vision and Quality of Life Index. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:1289–94.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Desroziers K, et al. Estimating EQ-5D and OAB-5D health state utilities for patients with overactive bladder. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:9.CrossRef
44.
McTaggart-Cowan HM, et al. The validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments: the ability to discriminate asthma control status. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(3):453–62.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Hatswell AJ, Pennington B, Pericleous L, Rowen D, Lebmeier M, Lee D. Patient-reported utilities in advanced or metastatic melanoma, including analysis of utilities by time to death. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):140.
46.
Wolowacz S, et al. Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2016;19:704–19.CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
Rowen D, et al. It’s all in the name, or is it? The impact of labelling on health state values. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(1):31–40.CrossRef
49.
NICE; National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.
50.
Longworth L, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability? Health Econ. 2010;19:125–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
Scholzel-Dorenbos CJM, et al. Validation study of the prototype of a disease-specific index measure for health-related quality of life in dementia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:11.CrossRef
54.
Arons AMM, et al. A simple and practical index to measure dementia-related quality of life. Value Health. 2016;19:60–5.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Goodwin E, Green C. A quality-adjusted life-year measure for multiple sclerosis: developing a patient-reported health state classification system for a multiple sclerosis-specific preference-based measure. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;18(8):1016–24.CrossRef
56.
Ratcliffe J, et al. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health Econ. 2009;18(11):1261–76.CrossRefPubMed
57.
LLoyd A, et al. Economic evaluation in short bowel syndrome (SBS): an algorithm to estimate utility scores for a patient-reported SBS-specific quality of life scale (SBS-QoL(TM)). Qual Life Res. 2014;23:449–58.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Brazier JE, et al. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King’s health questionnaire. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(1):113–26.CrossRef
59.
Cuervo J, et al. Development of the Incontinence Utility Index: estimating population-based utilities associated with urinary problems from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire and Neurogenic Module. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
60.
Kok ET, et al. The valuation of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for use in economic evaluations. Eur Urol. 2002;42:491–7.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Misajon R, et al. Vision and quality of life: the development of a utility measure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4007–15.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Kowalski JW, et al. Rasch analysis in the development of a simplified version of the national eye institute visual-function questionnaire-25 for utility estimation. Qual Life Res. 2011 (Forthcoming).
63.
Rowen D, Brazier JE. Multi-attribute utility instruments: condition-specific versions. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopaedia of health economics. San Diego: Elsevier; 2014. P. 358–365.CrossRef
64.
Yang Y, et al. Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Med Dec Mak. 2011;31(2):281–91.CrossRef
65.
Rowen D, et al. Estimating preference-based single index measures for dementia using DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;15(2):346–56.CrossRef
66.
Peacock S, et al. Vision and quality of life: development of methods for the VisQoL vision-related utility instrument. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15(4):218–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
67.
Rentz AM, et al. Development of a preference-based index from the national eye institute visual function questionnaire-25. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:310–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment
verfasst von
Donna Rowen
John Brazier
Roberta Ara
Ismail Azzabi Zouraq
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe Sonderheft 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0546-9

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 1/2017

PharmacoEconomics 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Review Article

The Use of Mapping to Estimate Health State Utility Values

Review Article

Estimating Health State Utility Values for Comorbidities

Review Article

A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models

Editorial

Special Edition on Utility Measurement, PharmacoEconomics

Review Article

Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies

Review Article

The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models