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
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt 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 Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
The European Journal of Health Economics
Erschienen in:

27.02.2024 | Original Paper

Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses

verfasst von: Kevin Kennedy, Gurkaran Sarohia, Dominik Podbielski, Simon Pickard, Jean-Eric Tarride, Feng Xie

Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Ausgabe 8/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Importance

Describing the characteristics and sources of health state utility values and reporting practice in the literature of cost-utility analyses facilitates an understanding of the level of the transparency, validity, and generalizability of cost-utility analyses. Improving the quality of reporting will support investigators in describing the incremental value of emerging glaucoma interventions.

Objective

To describe the state of practice among published glaucoma cost-utility analysis studies, focusing on valuation of health and the quality of reporting.

Evidence review

We searched several databases including Medline, CINHAL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Biosis previews, the Health Economic Evaluations Database, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We included full-text, English, published cost-utility analyses of glaucoma interventions with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary outcome measure to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios. Excluded studies were non-English language, reviews, editorials, protocols, or other types of economic studies (cost–benefit, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness). Study characteristics, operational definitions of glaucoma health states and health state utilities were extracted. The original source of the health utility was reviewed to determine the scale of measurement and the source of preference weighting. Items from the Systematic Review of Utilities for Cost-Effectiveness (SpRUCE checklist) were used to assess the reporting and quality of health utilities in glaucoma CUA.

Findings

43 CUAs were included, with 11 unique sources of health utilities. A wide range of health utilities for the same Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson glaucoma health states were reported; ocular hypertension (0.84–0.95), mild (0.68–0.94), moderate (0.57–0.92), advanced (0.58–0.88), severe/blind (0.46–0.76), and bilateral blindness (0.26–0.5). Most studies reported the basis for using health utilities (34, 79%) and any assumptions or adjustments applied to the health utilities (22, 51%). Few studies reported a framework for assessing the relevance of health utilities to a decision context (8, 19%). Even fewer (3, 7%) applied a systematic search strategy to identify health utilities and used a structured assessment of quality for inclusion. Overall, reporting has not improved over time.

Conclusions and relevance

This review describes that few CUAs describe important rationale for using health state utility values. Including additional details on the search, appraisal, selection, and inclusion process of health utility values improves transparency, generalizability and supports the assessment of the validity of study conclusions. Future investigations should aim to use health utilities on the same scale of measurement across health states and consider the source and relevance to the decision context/purpose of conducting that cost-utility study.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Drummond, M.F., et al.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)
2.
Isenberg, J., Sheybani, A., Ahmed, I.I.K.: Advancing the economic assessment of microinvasive glaucoma surgery. J. Glaucoma 25(7), e721–e722 (2016)PubMedCrossRef
3.
Sun, X., Dai, Y.: Medical Treatment of Glaucoma. Springer, New York (2019)CrossRef
4.
Zhang, N., Wang, J., Li, Y., Jiang, B.: Prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma in the last 20 years: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–12 (2021)
5.
Hodapp, E., Parrish, R.K., Anderson, D.R.: Clinical decisions in glaucoma. Mosby Incorporated (1993)
6.
Lazcano-Gomez, G., de Angeles Ramos-Cadena, M., Torres-Tamayo, M., de Oteyza, A.H., Turati-Acosta, M., Jimenez-Román, J.: Cost of glaucoma treatment in a developing country over a 5-year period. Medicine 95(47), 5341 (2016)CrossRef
7.
Hernández, R.A., Burr, J.M., Vale, L.D.: Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(2), 203–211 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
8.
Sharafeldin, N., Kawaguchi, A., Sundaram, A., et al.: Review of economic evaluations of teleophthalmology as a screening strategy for chronic eye disease in adults. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 102(11), 1485–1491 (2018)PubMedCrossRef
9.
Bartelt-Hofer, J., Ben-Debba, L., Flessa, S.: Systematic review of economic evaluations in primary open-angle glaucoma: decision analytic modeling insights. PharmacoEconomics Open 4(1), 5–12 (2020)PubMedCrossRef
10.
Koleva, D., Motterlini, N., Schiavone, M., Garattini, L.: Medical costs of glaucoma and ocular hypertension in italian referral centres: a prospective study. Ophthalmologica 221(5), 340–347 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
11.
Orme, M., Boler, A.: Prostaglandin analogues for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Pharmacoeconomics 24(8), 743–750 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
12.
Ribeiro, I.S., Batel Marques, F.J., Alves, D.G., Alves, C.M.C.: A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 19(4), 421–430 (2019)PubMedCrossRef
13.
Agrawal, P., Bradshaw, S.E.: Systematic literature review of clinical and economic outcomes of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) in primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmol Therapy 7(1), 49–73 (2018)CrossRef
14.
Brazier, J., Ara, R., Azzabi, I., et al.: Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health 22(3), 267–275 (2019)PubMedCrossRef
15.
Lee, B.S., Kymes, S.M., Nease, R.F., Jr., Sumner, W., Siegfried, C.J., Gordon, M.O.: The impact of anchor point on utilities for 5 common ophthalmic diseases. Ophthalmology 115(5), 898–903 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
16.
Ribeiro, I., Batel Marques, F., Mendes, D., Alves, C.: A systematic review of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: an analysis of the health-state utilities. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 27(5), 325–338 (2020)PubMedCrossRef
17.
McDonough, C.M., Anna, N.A.T.: Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 25, 93–106 (2007)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Brown, M.M., Brown, G.C., Sharma, S., Kistler, J., Brown, H.: Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 85(3), 327–331 (2001)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Burr, J.M., Kilonzo, M., Vale, L., Ryan, M.: Developing a preference-based glaucoma utility index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom. Vis. Sci. 84(8), E797–E809 (2007)CrossRef
20.
Choi, S., Choi, J.A., Kwon, J.W., Park, S.M., Jee, D.: Utility values for glaucoma patients in korea. PLoS ONE 13(5), 0197581 (2018)CrossRef
21.
Jampel, H.D., Schwartz, A., Pollack, I., Abrams, D., Weiss, H., Miller, R.: Glaucoma patients’ assessment of their visual function and quality of life. J. Glaucoma 11(2), 154–163 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
22.
Kobelt, G., Jonsson, B., Bergström, A., Chen, E., Lindén, C., Alm, A.: Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: What drives utility? Results from a pilot study in sweden. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 84(3), 363–371 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
23.
Rein, D.B., Wirth, K.E., Johnson, C.A., Lee, P.P.: Estimating quality-adjusted life year losses associated with visual field deficits using methodological approaches. Ophthal. Epidemiol. 14(4), 258–264 (2007)CrossRef
24.
Tengs, T.O., Wallace, A.: One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med. Care 38, 583–637 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
25.
Gupta, V., Srinivasan, G., Mei, S., Gazzard, G., Sihota, R., Kapoor, K.: Utility values among glaucoma patients: an impact on the quality of life. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 89(10), 1241–1244 (2005)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Van Gestel, A., Webers, C., Beckers, H., et al.: The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye 24(12), 1759 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
27.
Wolfram, C., Lorenz, K., Breitscheidel, L., Verboven, Y., Pfeiffer, N.: Health-and vision-related quality of life in patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmologica 229(4), 227–234 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lazzaro, C., van Steen, C., Billeit, S., et al.: Cost-utility analysis of a latanoprost cationic emulsion (STN1013001) versus other latanoprost in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and concomitant ocular surface disease in germany. Clin. Ophthalmol. (Auckland, NZ). 16, 323 (2022)CrossRef
29.
30.
Slevin, M.L., Plant, H., Lynch, D., Drinkwater, J., Gregory, W.: Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br. J. Cancer 57(1), 109–112 (1988)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Mulley, A.G., Jr.: Assessing patients’ utilities: Can the ends justify the means? Med. Care 27, S269–S281 (1989)PubMedCrossRef
32.
Brown, M.M., Brown, G.C., Sharma, S., Busbee, B.: Quality of life associated with visual loss: a time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states. Ophthalmology 110(6), 1076–1081 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
33.
Sharma, S., Brown, G.C., Brown, M.M., et al.: Converting visual acuity to utilities. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 35(5), 267–272 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
34.
Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Isacson, D.G., Borgquist, L.: Health-state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. Eur. J. Public Health 9(3), 211–217 (1999)CrossRef
35.
Ara, R., Brazier, J., Peasgood, T., Paisley, S.: The identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 35(1), 43–55 (2017)PubMedCrossRef
36.
Ara, R., Peasgood, T., Mukuria, C., et al.: Sourcing and using appropriate health state utility values in economic models in health care. Pharmacoeconomics 35(1), 7–9 (2017)PubMedCrossRef
37.
Ara, R., Brazier, J., Zouraq, I.A.: The use of health state utility values in decision models. Pharmacoeconomics 35(1), 77–88 (2017)PubMedCrossRef
38.
Boodhna, T., Crabb, D.P.: More frequent, more costly? Health economic modelling aspects of monitoring glaucoma patients in england. BMC Health Serv. Res. 16(1), 611 (2016)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Pen, C.L., Ligier, M., Berdeaux, G.: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of travoprost versus latanoprost and timolol in the treatment of advanced glaucoma in five european countries: Austria, france, germany, the netherlands and the united kingdom. J. Med. Econ. 8(1–4), 67–84 (2005)CrossRef
40.
41.
Vaahtoranta-Lehtonen, H., Tuulonen, A., Aronen, P., et al.: Cost effectiveness and cost utility of an organized screening programme for glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 85(5), 508–518 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
42.
Stewart, W.C., Stewart, J.A., Nassar, Q.J., Mychaskiw, M.A.: Cost-effectiveness of treating ocular hypertension. Ophthalmology 115(1), 94–98 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
43.
Philippe Nordmann, J., Lafuma, A., Berdeaux, G.: Modelling the lifetime economic consequences of glaucoma in France. J. Med. Econ. 12(1), 9–16 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
44.
Stewart, W., Stewart, J., Mychaskiw, M.: Cost-effectiveness of latanoprost and timolol maleate for the treatment of glaucoma in scandinavia and the united kingdom, using a decision-analytic health economic model. Eye 23(1), 132–140 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
45.
Kymes, S.M., Plotzke, M.R., Kass, M.A., Boland, M.V., Gordon, M.O.: Effect of patient’s life expectancy on the cost-effectiveness of treatment for ocular hypertension. Arch. Ophthalmol. 128(5), 613–618 (2010)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Wittenborn, J.S., Rein, D.B.: The cost-effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in barbados and ghana. Optom. Vis. Sci.. Vis. Sci. 88(1), 155 (2011)CrossRef
47.
Stein, J.D., Kim, D.D., Peck, W.W., Giannetti, S.M., Hutton, D.W.: Cost-effectiveness of medications compared with laser trabeculoplasty in patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 130(4), 497–505 (2012)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Li, E.Y., Tham, C.C., Chi, S.C., Lam, D.S.: Cost-effectiveness of treating normal tension glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54(5), 3394–3399 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
49.
Blumberg, D.M., Vaswani, R., Nong, E., Al-Aswad, L., Cioffi, G.A.: A comparative effectiveness analysis of visual field outcomes after projected glaucoma screening using SD-OCT in african american communities. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55(6), 3491–3500 (2014)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Burr, J., Hernández, R., Ramsay, C., et al.: Is it worthwhile to conduct a randomized controlled trial of glaucoma screening in the united kingdom? J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 19(1), 42–51 (2014)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Kaplan, R.I., De Moraes, C.G., Cioffi, G.A., Al-Aswad, L.A., Blumberg, D.M.: Comparative cost-effectiveness of the baerveldt implant, trabeculectomy with mitomycin, and medical treatment. JAMA ophthalmology. 133(5), 560–567 (2015)PubMedCrossRef
52.
Thomas, S., Hodge, W., Malvankar-Mehta, M.: The cost-effectiveness analysis of teleglaucoma screening device. PLoS ONE 10(9), 0137913 (2015)CrossRef
53.
Guedes, R.A.P., Guedes, V.M.P., Mello Gomes, C.E., de, Chaoubah A: Maximizing cost-effectiveness by adjusting treatment strategy according to glaucoma severity. Medicine 95(52), 5745 (2016)CrossRef
54.
55.
Choi, J.A., Song, L.D., Choi, S., Park, S.M., Kwon, J.W., Jee, D.: The cost-effectiveness of medication, laser trabeculoplasty, and trabeculectomy for treatment of open-angle glaucoma in south korea. Medicine 98(2), e14026 (2019)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
57.
Ordóñez, J.E., Ordóñez, A., Osorio, U.M.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of iStent trabecular micro-bypass stent for patients with open-angle glaucoma in colombia. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 35(2), 329–340 (2019)PubMedCrossRef
58.
Patel, V., Ahmed, I., Podbielski, D., Falvey, H., Murray, J., Goeree, R.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of standalone trabecular micro-bypass stents in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in canada. J. Med. Econ. 22(4), 390–401 (2019)PubMedCrossRef
59.
Tang, J., Liang, Y., O’Neill, C., Kee, F., Jiang, J., Congdon, N.: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of population-based glaucoma screening in china: a decision-analytic markov model. Lancet Glob. Health 7(7), e968–e978 (2019)PubMedCrossRef
60.
61.
Fea, A.M., Cattel, F., Gandolfi, S., Buseghin, G., Furneri, G., Costagliola, C.: Cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass stents (TBS) in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in italy. BMC Health Serv. Res. 21(1), 1–12 (2021)CrossRef
62.
Nieland, K., Labbé, A., Schweitzer, C., et al.: A cost-effectiveness analysis of iStent inject combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in france. PLoS ONE 16(6), e0252130 (2021)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
Teus, M.A., Belda, J.I., Lavin, C., et al.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of iStent inject implantation during cataract surgery compared to cataract surgery alone for mild to moderate open-angle glaucoma patients in spain. Expert Rev. Ophthalmol. 16(4), 319–328 (2021)CrossRef
64.
Javanbakht, M., Azuara-Blanco, A., Burr, J.M., et al.: Early lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of primary angle closure glaucoma: an economic evaluation based on data from the EAGLE trial. BMJ Open 7(1), e013254 (2017)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
Gazzard, G., Konstantakopoulou, E., Garway-Heath, D., et al.: Selective laser trabeculoplasty versus drops for newly diagnosed ocular hypertension and glaucoma: The LiGHT RCT. Health Technol. Assess. (Winchester, England). 23(31), 1 (2019)PubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
King, A.J., Fernie, G., Hudson, J., et al.: Primary trabeculectomy versus primary glaucoma eye drops for newly diagnosed advanced glaucoma: TAGS RCT. Health Technol. Assess. 25(72), 1–158 (2021)PubMedCrossRef
67.
Rein, D.B., Wittenborn, J.S., Lee, P.P., et al.: The cost-effectiveness of routine office-based identification and subsequent medical treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma in the united states. Ophthalmology 116(5), 823–832 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
68.
Burr, J.M., Botello-Pinzon, P., Takwoingi, Y., et al.: Surveillance for ocular hypertension: an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 16(29), 1–271 (2012)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
van Gestel, A., Webers, C.A., Severens, J.L., et al.: The long-term outcomes of four alternative treatment strategies for primary open-angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 90(1), 20–31 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
70.
Crane, G.J., Kymes, S.M., Hiller, J.E., Casson, R., Martin, A., Karnon, J.D.: Accounting for costs, QALYs, and capacity constraints: Using discrete-event simulation to evaluate alternative service delivery and organizational scenarios for hospital-based glaucoma services. Med. Decis. Mak.Mak. 33(8), 986–997 (2013)CrossRef
71.
van Gestel, A., Schouten, J.S., Beckers, H.J., Severens, J.L., Hendrikse, F., Webers, C.A.: The long term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for ocular hypertension. Acta Ophthalmol. 92(6), 513–523 (2014)PubMedCrossRef
72.
Hernández, R., Burr, J., Vale, L., et al.: Monitoring ocular hypertension, how much and how often? A cost-effectiveness perspective. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 100(9), 1263–1268 (2016)PubMedCrossRef
73.
74.
Xu, X., Ma, Y.Y., Zou, H.D.: Cost-utility analysis of cataract surgery in advanced glaucoma patients. J. Glaucoma 25(7), e657–e662 (2016)PubMedCrossRef
75.
John, D., Parikh, R.: Cost-effectiveness and cost utility of community screening for glaucoma in urban India. Public Health 148, 37–48 (2017)PubMedCrossRef
76.
John, D., Parikh, R.: Cost-effectiveness of community screening for glaucoma in rural India: a decision analytical model. Public Health 155, 142–151 (2018)PubMedCrossRef
77.
Brown, G.C., Brown, M.M.: Patient preference-based comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of the prostamides for open-angle glaucoma. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 35(3), 145–160 (2019)PubMedCrossRef
78.
Sun, X., Zhang, S., Wang, N., et al.: Utility assessment among patients of primary angle closure/glaucoma in china: a preliminary study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 93(7), 871–874 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
79.
Sintonen, H.: The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann. Med. 33(5), 328–336 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses
verfasst von
Kevin Kennedy
Gurkaran Sarohia
Dominik Podbielski
Simon Pickard
Jean-Eric Tarride
Feng Xie
Publikationsdatum
27.02.2024
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Ausgabe 8/2024
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01663-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2024

Assessment of health state utilities associated with adult and pediatric acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD)

  • Open Access
  • Original Paper

The role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions on health technologies in the Netherlands

  • Open Access
  • Original Paper

Measuring EQ-5D-5L utility values in parents who have experienced perinatal death

  • Open Access
  • Original Paper

AOTMiT reimbursement recommendations compared to other HTA agencies

  • Open Access
  • Original Paper

The Economic Costs of Informal Care: Estimates from a National Cross-Sectional Survey in The Netherlands

  • Open Access
  • Original Paper

Comparing heuristic valuation processes between health state valuation from child and adult perspectives

  • Open Access
  • Original Paper