Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Health Utility Estimates in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

ABSTRACT: Background: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common recurrent skin disease that adversely affect patient's quality of life condition to treat. Economic evaluations of health care often include patient preferences for health outcomes using utilities. Objectives: The study aimed to determine pooled estimates of utility-based quality of life in patients with CSU. Methods: We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of peer-reviewed articles and conference papers that published from database inception to 31 April 2019 that reported utility estimates in patients with CSU. Scores reported with the EQ-5D, SF-6D, SF-12, and SF-36 instruments were converted to utilities using published mapping algorithms. Meta-analysis was used to calculate the pooled and meta-regression was used to examine the effects of possible factors. Results: The pooled utility estimate for CSU was 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67–0.70]. The pooled utility estimate that converted from SF-36 or SF-12 was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.58–0.74), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.70–0.74) for EQ-5D, and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.63–0.67) for SF-6D, respectively. According to the meta-regression, higher proportion of female patients was significantly associated lower utility estimates (p = 0.013). Conclusions: The study provides evidence-based utility estimates to inform health-related burden analysis of CSU and reference for the follow-up cost-effectiveness evaluation of chronic spontaneous urticaria intervention. These results highlight differences in common utility-based instruments and need to be cognizant of the specific instruments used when comparing the results of outcome studies.

SUBMITTER: Yuan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7793814 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStandard doses of second-generation H1-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence an increase in the dose of sgAHs is recommended. However, literature evaluating the efficacy and safety of this treatment remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sgAHs compared with standard-dose sgAHs in treating CSU.MethodsA systematic literature search of double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCT) utilizing multiple doses of sgAHs was performed by searching the electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane databases, and Web of Science. Bibliographies were also manually searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The response rate, the number of adverse events, somnolence, and withdrawal due to adverse events were extracted from each article. The data were combined and analyzed to quantify the safety and efficacy of the treatment. RevMan (V5.3) software was used for data synthesis.ResultsA total of 13 studies were identified, seven of which met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. Our pooled meta-analyses showed that high-dose sgAHs was associated with a significantly higher response rate than standard-dose (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26; P = 0.02). Conversely, high doses of sgAHs were associated with significantly higher somnolence rates than standard dose (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events between standard- and high-dose treatments.ConclusionsOur analyses showed that a high dose of sgAHs (up to two times the standard dose) might be more effective than a standard dose in CSU treatment. High-dose and standard-dose sgAHs showed similar adverse events, except for somnolence, where incidence was found to be dose-dependent in some studies. However, given the limited number of studies, our meta-analysis results should be interpreted with caution.

Project description:BackgroundThe first-line agents comprising antihistamines for chronic urticaria, are not completely satisfactory. Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF), a Chinese herb, has been developed into several Tripterygium agents and have definite effects on autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. In chronic urticaria, however, their values of practical application remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TwHF in patients with chronic urticaria.MethodsSeveral databases were systematically searched including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, Wan Fang Database, and Chinese Biomedicine. Randomized controlled trials comparing antihistamines with TwHF or Tripterygium agents in combination with antihistamines were included. Revman5.3 was utilized to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018091595.ResultsTwenty-one trials with 2565 participants were included in this analysis. Meta-analysis showed that, when antihistamines were combined with TwHF and Tripterygium agents, the curative effect in cases of chronic urticaria was superior to that of antihistamines alone (RR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.33-1.46). The incidence rates of gastrointestinal disorder (RR: 2.91; 95% CI: 1.70-4.99) and menstrual disorder (RR: 6.00; 95% CI: 1.79-20.13) in drug combination groups were higher than those in controls, while other adverse events were similar between the two groups. After treatment, Dermatology Life Quality Index (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09-1.40), quality of sleep (RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.07-2.12), and daily activity (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.25-1.78) were all improved. Furthermore, drug combination groups demonstrated less relapse (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25-0.45).ConclusionsTwHF and Tripterygium agents, in combination with antihistamines, appear to be more effective than antihistamines alone. Nevertheless, adverse events cannot be ignored. Large sample, multi-center, high-quality clinical studies are needed to verify the exact effects and safety of TwHF and Tripterygium agents in treatment of chronic urticaria.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Health Utility Estimates in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets