Dataset Information

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health utility values (HUVs) are important inputs to the cost-utility analysis of breast cancer interventions.

Purpose

Provide a catalog of breast cancer-related published HUVs across different stages of breast cancer and treatment interventions.

Data sources

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Cochrane databases (2005-2017).

Study selection

Studies published in English that reported mean or median HUVs using direct or indirect methods of utility elicitation for breast cancer.

Data extraction

Independent reviewers extracted data on a preestablished and piloted form; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Data analysis

Mixed-effects meta-regression using restricted maximum likelihood modeling was conducted for intervention type, stage of breast cancer, and typical clinical and treatment trajectory of breast cancer patients to assess the effect of study characteristics (i.e., sample size, utility elicitation method, and respondent type) on HUVs.

Data synthesis

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. Most articles (n = 52, 66%) derived HUVs using the EQ-5D. Patients with advanced-stage breast cancer (range, 0.08 to 0.82) reported lower HUVs as compared with patients with early-stage breast cancer (range, 0.58 to 0.99). The meta-regression analysis found that undergoing chemotherapy and surgery and radiation, being diagnosed with an advanced stage of breast cancer, and recurrent cancer were associated with lower HUVs. The members of the general public reported lower HUVs as compared with patients.

Limitations

There was considerable heterogeneity in the study population, health states assessed, and utility elicitation methods.

Conclusion

This review provides a catalog of published HUVs related to breast cancer. The substantial heterogeneity in the health utility studies makes it challenging for researchers to choose which HUVs to use in cost-utility analyses for breast cancer interventions.

SUBMITTER: Kaur MN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9189726 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.

Kaur Manraj N MN Yan Jiajun J Klassen Anne F AF David Justin P JP Pieris Dilshan D Sharma Manraj M Bordeleau Louise L Xie Feng F

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20220118 5

<h4>Background</h4>Health utility values (HUVs) are important inputs to the cost-utility analysis of breast cancer interventions.<h4>Purpose</h4>Provide a catalog of breast cancer-related published HUVs across different stages of breast cancer and treatment interventions.<h4>Data sources</h4>Systematic searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Cochrane databases (2005-2017).<h4>Study selection</h4>Studies published in English that reported me ...[more]

PMID: 35042379

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the predominant histological subtype of lung cancer and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Quality of life is an important consideration for patients and current treatments can adversely affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL).ObjectiveThe objectives of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify and provide a comprehensive catalogue of published health state utility values (HSUVs) in patients with early-stage NSCLC and to understand the factors impacting on HSUVs in this indication.MethodsElectronic searches of Embase, MEDLINE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews were conducted via the Ovid platform in March 2021 and June 2022 and were supplemented by grey literature searches of conference proceedings, reference lists, health technology assessment bodies, and other relevant sources. Eligibility criteria were based on patients with early-stage (stage I-III) resectable NSCLC receiving treatment in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. No restriction was placed on interventions or comparators, geography, or publication date. English language publications or non-English language publications with an English abstract were of primary interest. A validated checklist was applied to conduct quality assessment of the full publications.ResultsTwenty-nine publications (27 full publications and two conference abstracts) met all eligibility criteria and reported 217 HSUVs and seven disutilities associated with patients with early NSCLC. The data showed that increasing disease stage is associated with decreasing HRQoL. It was also indicated that utility values vary by treatment approach; however, the choice of treatment may be influenced by the patients' disease stage at presentation. Few studies aligned with the requirements of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, indicating a need for future studies to conform to these preferences, making them suitable for use in economic evaluations.ConclusionsThis SLR found that disease stage and treatment approach were two of several factors that can impact patient-reported HRQoL. Additional studies are warranted to confirm these findings and to investigate emerging therapies for early NSCLC. In collecting a catalogue of HSUV data, this SLR has begun to identify the challenges associated with identifying reliable utility value estimates suitable for use in economic evaluations of early NSCLC.

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with decreased patient well-being and symptoms that can cause substantial impairments in patient functioning and even lead to suicide. Worldwide, MDD currently causes the second-most years lived with disability and is predicted to become the leading cause of disability by 2030. Utility values, capturing patient quality of life, are required in economic evaluations for new treatments undergoing reimbursement submissions. We aimed to identify health state utility values (HSUVs) and disutilities in MDD for use in future economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments.MethodsEmbase, PubMed, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, plus gray literature, were searched from January 1998 to December 21, 2018, with no language or geographical restrictions, for relevant studies that reported HSUVs and disutilities for patients with MDD receiving pharmacological interventions.Results443 studies were identified; 79 met the inclusion criteria. We focused on a subgroup of 28 articles that reported primary utility data from 16 unique studies of MDD treated with pharmacological interventions. HSUVs were elicited using EQ-5D (13/16, 81%; EQ-5D-3L: 11/16, 69%; EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L not specified: 2/16), EQ-VAS (5/16, 31%), and standard gamble (1/16, 6%). Most studies reported baseline HSUVs defined by study entry criteria. HSUVs for a first or recurrent major depressive episode (MDE) ranged from 0.33 to 0.544 and expanded from 0.2 to 0.61 for patients with and without painful physical symptoms, respectively. HSUVs for an MDE with inadequate treatment response ranged from 0.337 to 0.449. Three studies reported HSUVs defined by MADRS or HAMD-17 clinical thresholds. There was a large amount of heterogeneity in patient characteristics between the studies. One study reported disutility estimates associated with treatment side effects.ConclusionsPublished HSUVs in MDD, elicited using methods accepted by health technology assessment bodies, are available for future economic evaluations. However, the evidence base is limited, and it is important to select appropriate HSUVs for the intervention being evaluated and that align with clinical health state definitions used within an economic model. Future studies are recommended to elicit HSUVs for new treatments and their side effects and add to the existing evidence where data are lacking.

Project description:BackgroundHealth state utility values (HSUVs) are an essential input parameter to cost-utility analysis (CUA). Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) provide summarized information for selecting utility values from an increasing number of primary studies eliciting HSUVs. Quality appraisal (QA) of such SLRs is an important process towards the credibility of HSUVs estimates; yet, authors often overlook this crucial process. A scientifically developed and widely accepted QA tool for this purpose is lacking and warranted.ObjectivesTo comprehensively describe the nature of QA in published SRLs of studies eliciting HSUVs and generate a list of commonly used items.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase from 01.01.2015 to 15.05.2021. SLRs of empirical studies eliciting HSUVs that were published in English were included. We extracted descriptive data, which included QA tools checklists or good practice recommendations used or cited, items used, and the methods of incorporating QA results into study findings. Descriptive statistics (frequencies of use and occurrences of items, acceptance and counterfactual acceptance rates) were computed and a comprehensive list of QA items was generated.ResultsA total of 73 SLRs were included, comprising 93 items and 35 QA tools and good recommendation practices. The prevalence of QA was 55% (40/73). Recommendations by NICE and ISPOR guidelines appeared in 42% (16/40) of the SLRs that appraised quality. The most commonly used QA items in SLRs were response rates (27/40), statistical analysis (22/40), sample size (21/40) and loss of follow up (21/40). Yet, the most commonly featured items in QA tools and GPRs were statistical analysis (23/35), confounding or baseline equivalency (20/35), and blinding (14/35). Only 5% of the SLRS used QA to inform the data analysis, with acceptance rates of 100% (in two studies) 67%, 53% and 33%. The mean counterfactual acceptance rate was 55% (median 53% and IQR 56%).ConclusionsThere is a considerably low prevalence of QA in the SLRs of HSUVs. Also, there is a wide variation in the QA dimensions and items included in both SLRs and extracted tools. This underscores the need for a scientifically developed QA tool for multi-variable primary studies of HSUVs.

Project description:IntroductionAn increasing number of postmenopausal women are diagnosed with breast cancer at an older age (≥ 70 years). There is a lack of synthesised health utility data to support decision-making for managing breast cancer in this older population. This study aimed to identify the availability of, and the subsequent impact of age on, health state utility values (HSUVs) measured by the EQ-5D for older women with early-stage breast cancer.MethodThis systematic review identified EQ-5D (3L or 5L version) HSUVs for postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Studies were identified from a previous systematic review (inception to 2009) and an electronic database search (Medline and Embase; 2009 to September 2021). Mean HSUVs were summarised by health state. Quality appraisal was performed on studies reporting HSUVs for older ages (≥ 70 years). Multivariable meta-regression assessed the association between HSUVs and age, health state, treatments received, and time of measuring the utility values (greater or less than one year post-treatment).ResultsFifty EQ-5D HSUVs were identified from 13 studies. Mean HSUVs decreased as health state worsened: from the stable (mean=0.83) to progression (mean=0.79) and advanced (mean=0.68) states. Two studies reported six HSUVs estimated from the sample of women with a mean age ≥ 70. Meta-regression model fit improved by including age as an independent variable and attenuated the estimated utility decrements associated with worse health states. Utility decrements for the progression and advanced states were -0.052 (95%CI: -0.097, -0.007) and -0.143 (95%CI: -0.264, -0.022) respectively. The breast cancer-specific utility decrement associated with a one-year increase in age was -0.001 (95%CI: -0.004, 0.002).ConclusionRelevant and accurate HSUVs are essential to help support decision-making about the most effective and cost-effective ways to manage early-stage breast cancer in older women. Age has a vital role in determining health utility values in this population. This study provides analysts and decision-makers with HSUVs and utility decrements that reflect the disease process in this older population.

Project description:BackgroundUsing appropriate health state utility values (HSUVs) is critical for economic evaluation of new lung cancer interventions, such as low-dose computed tomography screening and immunotherapy. Therefore, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of community- and choice-based HSUVs for lung cancer.MethodsOn 6 March 2017, we conducted a systematic search of the following databases: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and the School of Health and Related Research Health Utility Database. The search was updated on 17 April 2019. Studies reporting mean or median lung cancer-specific HSUVs including a measure of variance were included and assessed for relevance and validity. Studies with high relevance (i.e. community- and choice-based) were further analysed. Mean HSUVs were pooled using random-effects models for all stages, stages I-II, and stages III-IV. For studies with a control group, we calculated the disutility due to lung cancer. A sensitivity analysis included only the methodologically most comparable studies (i.e. using the EQ-5D instrument and matching tariff). Subgroup analyses were conducted by time to death, histology, sex, age, treatment modality, treatment line, and progression status.ResultsWe identified and analysed 27 studies of high relevance. The pooled HSUV was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.75) for all stages, 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86) for stages I-II, and 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73) for stages III-IV (p = 0.02 vs. stage I-II). Heterogeneity was present in each pooled analysis (p < 0.01; I2 = 92-99%). Disutility due to lung cancer ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.05-0.17) to 0.27 (95% CI 0.18-0.36). In the sensitivity analysis with the methodologically most comparable studies, stage-specific HSUVs varied by country. Such studies were only identified for Canada, China, Spain, the UK, the USA, Denmark, Germany, and Thailand. In the subgroup analysis by time to death, HSUVs for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer ranged from 0.83 (95% CI 0.82-0.85) at ≥ 360 days from death to 0.56 (95% CI 0.46-0.66) at < 30 days from death. Among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, HSUVs were lower for those receiving third- or fourth-line treatment and for those with progressed disease. Results of subgroup analyses by histology, sex, age, and treatment modality were ambiguous.ConclusionsThe presented evidence supports the use of stage- and country-specific HSUVs. However, such HSUVs are unavailable for most countries. Therefore, our pooled HSUVs may provide the best available stage-specific HSUVs for most countries. For metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, adjusting for the decreased HSUVs in the last year of life may be considered, as may further stratification of HSUVs by treatment line or progression status. If required, HSUVs for other health states may be identified using our comprehensive breakdown of study characteristics.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.

Background

Purpose

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Data analysis

Data synthesis

Limitations

Conclusion

Publications

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets