Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 Preference Based SF-6D in a Clinical Trial Setting

AbstractObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that the Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3) and the SF-6D, based on the SF-36, generate similar health state values, and to test and compare their discriminant validity and responsiveness.MethodsThe HUI3 and SF-36 were administered to 331 patients enrolled in a double-blind, multinational phase III clinical trial in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention before hospital discharge and 6 months thereafter.ResultsThe mean SF-6D baseline health state score was 0.67 compared to the HUI3 of 0.63 with r of 0.616 and intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.40. The relationship was nonlinear with greatest divergence found at the lower levels of health. Both measures were found to agree with known differences in health and to be responsive to changes over time. Nevertheless, disagreement resulted in different estimates of change from baseline (0.08 vs. 0.154).ConclusionBoth measures deployed in the present study were found to have discriminant validity, and to be responsive to changes over time in coronary artery disease conditions. Nevertheless, the measures generated different estimates of health state values for this patient population. These differences might in part be the consequence of the health status descriptive system for the HUI that may have been more in line with the hospitalized state than that for the SF-6D. These findings seemed to indicate that measures deployed are not interchangeable for use in cost-utility analysis. More head-to-head comparisons between these two measures are needed to further define and compare relationships in different patient populations

Triage for coronary artery bypass graft surgery in Canada: Do patients agree on who should come first?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The extent to which clinical and non-clinical factors impact on the waiting-list prioritization preferences of patients in the queue is unknown. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios, the objective of this study was to examine the extent to which clinical and non-clinical factors impacted on how patients would prioritize others relative to themselves in the coronary artery bypass surgical queue.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ninety-one consecutive eligible patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (median waiting-time duration prior to survey of 8 weeks) were given a self-administered survey consisting of nine scenarios in which clinical and non-clinical characteristic profiles of hypothetical patients (also awaiting coronary artery bypass surgery) were varied. For each scenario, patients were asked where in the queue such hypothetical patients should be placed relative to themselves.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The eligible response rate was 65% (59/91). Most respondents put themselves marginally ahead of a hypothetical patient with identical clinical and non-clinical characteristics as themselves. There was a strong tendency for respondents to place patients of higher clinical acuity ahead of themselves in the queue (P < 0.0001). Social independence among young individuals was a positively valued attribute (P < 0.0001), but neither age per se nor financial status, directly impacted on patients waiting-list priority preferences.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>While patient perceptions generally reaffirmed a bypass surgical triage process based on principals of equity and clinical acuity, the valuation of social independence may justify further debate with regard to the inclusion of non-clinical factors in waiting-list prioritization management systems in Canada, as elsewhere.</p

The acceptability of waiting times for elective general surgery and the appropriateness of prioritising patients

BACKGROUND: Problematic waiting lists in public health care threaten the equity and timeliness of care provision in several countries. This study assesses different stakeholders' views on the acceptability of waiting lists in health care, their preferences for priority care of patients, and their judgements on acceptable waiting times for surgical patients. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 257 former patients (82 with varicose veins, 86 with inguinal hernia, and 89 with gallstones), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 GPs. Judgements on acceptable waiting times were assessed using vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones. RESULTS: Participants endorsed the prioritisation of patients based on clinical need, but not on ability to benefit. The groups had significantly different opinions (p < 0.05) on the use of non-clinical priority criteria and on the need for uniformity in the prioritisation process. Acceptable waiting times ranged between 2 and 25 weeks depending on the type of disorder (p < 0.001) and the severity of physical and psychosocial problems of patients (p < 0.001). Judgements were similar between the survey groups (p = 0.3) but responses varied considerably within each group depending on the individual's attitude towards waiting lists in health care (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The explicit prioritisation of patients seems an accepted means for reducing the overall burden from waiting lists. The disagreement about appropriate prioritisation criteria and the need for uniformity, however, raises concern about equity when implementing prioritisation in daily practice. Single factor waiting time thresholds seem insufficient for securing timely care provision in the presence of long waiting lists as they do not account for the different consequences of waiting between patients

Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: Instruments validation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prioritisation instruments were developed for patients on waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasties (AI) and cataract surgery (CI). The aim of the study was to assess their convergent and discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Multicentre validation study which included orthopaedic surgeons and ophthalmologists from 10 hospitals. Participating doctors were asked to include all eligible patients placed in the waiting list for the procedures under study during the medical visit. Doctors assessed patients' priority through a visual analogue scale (VAS) and administered the prioritisation instrument. Information on socio-demographic data and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (HUI3, EQ-5D, WOMAC and VF-14) was obtained through a telephone interview with patients. The correlation coefficients between the prioritisation instrument score and VAS and HRQOL were calculated. For the reliability study a self-administered questionnaire, which included hypothetic patients' scenarios, was sent via postal mail to the doctors. The priority of these scenarios was assessed through the prioritisation instrument. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between doctors was calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Correlations with VAS were strong for the AI (0.64, CI95%: 0.59–0.68) and for the CI (0.65, CI95%: 0.62–0.69), and moderate between the WOMAC and the AI (0.39, CI95%: 0.33–0.45) and the VF-14 and the CI (0.38, IC95%: 0.33–0.43). The results of the discriminant analysis were in general as expected. Inter-observer reliability was 0.79 (CI95%: 0.64–0.94) for the AI, and 0.79 (CI95%: 0.63–0.95) for the CI.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results show acceptable validity and reliability of the prioritisation instruments in establishing priority for surgery.</p

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs. METHODS: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX. CONCLUSIONS: bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission). STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The effects of publishing emergency department wait time on patient utilization patterns in a community with two emergency department sites: a retrospective, quasi-experiment design

BACKGROUND: Providing emergency department (ED) wait time information to the public has been suggested as a mechanism to reduce lengthy ED wait times (by enabling patients to select the ED site with shorter wait time), but the effects of such a program have not been evaluated. We evaluated the effects of such a program in a community with two ED sites. METHODS: Descriptive statistics for wait times of the two sites before and after the publication of wait time information were used to evaluate the effects of the publication of wait time information on wait times. Multivariate logistical regression was used to test whether or not individual patients used published wait time to decide which site to visit. RESULTS: We found that the rates of wait times exceeding 4 h, and the 95th percentile of wait times in the two sites decreased after the publication of wait time information, even though the average wait times experienced a slight increase. We also found that after controlling for other factors, the site with shorter wait time had a higher likelihood of being selected after the publication of wait time information, but there was no such relationship before the publication. CONCLUSIONS: These findings were consistent with the hypothesis that the publication of wait time information leads to patients selecting the site with shorter wait time. While publishing ED wait time information did not improve average wait time, it reduced the rates of lengthy wait times

Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices

OBJECTIVES: To compare quantitatively the discriminatory power of the EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in terms of absolute and relative informativity, using Shannon's indices. METHODS: EQ-5D and HUI2/3 data completed by a sample of the general adult US population (N = 3,691) were used. Five dimensions allowed head-to-head comparison of informativity: Mobility/Ambulation; Anxiety/Depression/Emotion; Pain/Discomfort (EQ-5D; HUI2; HUI3); Self-Care (EQ-5D; HUI2); and Cognition (HUI2; HUI3). Shannon's index and Shannon's Evenness index were used to assess absolute and relative informativity, both by dimension and by instrument as a whole. RESULTS: Absolute informativity was highest for HUI3, with the largest differences in Pain/Discomfort and Cognition. Relative informativity was highest for EQ-5D, with the largest differences in Mobility/Ambulation and Anxiety/Depression/Emotion. Absolute informativity by instrument was consistently highest for HUI3 and lowest for EQ-5D, and relative informativity was highest for EQ-5D and lowest for HUI3. DISCUSSION: Performance in terms of absolute and relative informativity of the common dimensions of the three instruments varies over dimensions. Several dimensions are suboptimal: Pain/Discomfort (EQ-5D) seems too crude with only 3 levels, and the level descriptions of Ambulation (HUI3) and Self-Care (HUI2) could be improved. In absence of a formal measure, Shannon's indices provide useful measures for assessing discriminatory power of utility instrument

Canadian Valuation of EQ-5D Health States: Preliminary Value Set and Considerations for Future Valuation Studies

Background The EQ-5D is a preference based instrument which provides a description of a respondent's health status, and an empirically derived value for that health state often from a representative sample of the general population. It is commonly used to derive Quality Adjusted Life Year calculations (QALY) in economic evaluations. However, values for health states have been found to differ between countries. The objective of this study was to develop a set of values for the EQ-5D health states for use in Canada. Methods Values for 48 different EQ-5D health states were elicited using the Time Trade Off (TTO) via a web survey in English. A random effect model was fitted to the data to estimate values for all 243 health states of the EQ-5D. Various model specifications were explored. Comparisons with EQ-5D values from the UK and US were made. Sensitivity analysis explored different transformations of values worse than dead, and exclusion criteria of subjects. Results The final model was estimated from the values of 1145 subjects with socio-demographics broadly representative of Canadian general population with the exception of Quebec. This yielded a good fit with observed TTO values, with an overall R2 of 0.403 and a mean absolute error of 0.044. Conclusion A preference-weight algorithm for Canadian studies that include the EQ-5D is developed. The primary limitations regarded the representativeness of the final sample, given the language used (English only), the method of recruitment, and the difficulty in the task. Insights into potential issues for conducting valuation studies in countries as large and diverse as Canada are gained