Combining Individual-Level Discrete Choice Experiment Estimates and Costs to Inform Health Care Management Decisions about Customized Care: The Case of Follow-Up Strategies after Breast Cancer Treatment

AbstractObjectiveCustomized care can be beneficial for patients when preferences for health care programs are heterogeneous. Yet, there is little guidance on how individual-specific preferences and cost data can be combined to inform health care decisions about customized care. Therefore, we propose a discrete choice experiment–based approach that illustrates how to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized (and noncustomized) care programs to provide information for hospital managers.MethodsWe exploit the fact that choice models make it possible to determine whether preference heterogeneity exists and to obtain individual-specific parameter estimates. We present an approach of how to combine these individual-specific parameter estimates from a random parameter model (mixed logit model) with cost data to analyze the cost-effectiveness of customized care and demonstrate our method in the case of follow-up after breast cancer treatment.ResultsWe found that there is significant preference heterogeneity for all except two attributes of breast cancer treatment follow-up and that the fully customized care program leads to higher utility and lower costs than the current standardized program. Compared with the single alternative program, the fully customized care program has increased benefits and higher costs. Thus, it is necessary for health care decision makers to judge whether the use of resources for customized care is cost-effective.ConclusionsDecision makers should consider using the results obtained from our methodological approach when they consider implementing customized health care programs, because it may help to find ways to save costs and increase patient satisfaction

English translation and cross-cultural validation of the patient-reported outcome measurement-haemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (PROM-HISS)

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank the following persons for their contribution to the translation of the PROM-HISS: Ms Sadé Assmann, Ms Isabel Senden, Mr Robert Colin Parker, and Mrs Tamara Boerma. The first author of this study was funded by a grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 852002023).Peer reviewe

Filgotinib for Treating Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis:An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Galapagos) of filgotinib (Jyseleca®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of filgotinib for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults who have had an inadequate response, loss of response or were intolerant to a previous biologic agent or conventional therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This paper summarises the company submission, presents the Evidence Review Group’s critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the company submission, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The company submission included one relevant study for the comparison of filgotinib versus placebo: the SELECTION trial. As there was no head-to-head evidence with any of the comparators, the company performed two separate network meta-analyses, one for the biologic-naïve population and one for the biologic-experienced population, and for both the induction and maintenance phases. The Evidence Review Group questioned the validity of the maintenance network meta-analysis because it assumed all active treatments to be comparators in this phase, which is not in line with clinical practice. The economic analysis used a number of assumptions that introduced substantial uncertainty, which could not be fully explored, for instance, the assumption that a risk of loss of response would be independent of health state and constant over time. Company and Evidence Review Group results indicate that at its current price, and disregarding confidential discounts for comparators and subsequent treatments, filgotinib dominates some comparators (golimumab and adalimumab in the company base case, all but intravenous and subcutaneous vedolizumab in the Evidence Review Group’s base case) in the biologic-naïve population. In the biologic-experienced population, filgotinib dominates all comparators in both the company and the Evidence Review Group’s base case. Results should be interpreted with caution as some important uncertainties were not included in the modelling. These uncertainties were mostly centred around the maintenance network meta-analysis, loss of response, health-related quality-of-life estimates and modelling of dose escalation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended filgotinib within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults when conventional or biological treatment cannot be tolerated, or if the disease has not responded well enough or has stopped responding to these treatments, and if the company provides filgotinib according to the commercial arrangement.</p

The development of a faecal incontinence core outcome set: an international Delphi study protocol

Purpose Faecal incontinence (FI) is estimated to affect around 7.7% of people. There is a lack of uniformity in outcome definitions, measurement and reporting in FI studies. Until now, there is no general consensus on which outcomes should be assessed and reported in FI research. This complicates comparison between studies and evidence synthesis, potentially leading to recommendations not evidence-based enough to guide physicians in selecting an FI therapy. A solution for this lack of uniformity in reporting of outcomes is the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FI. This paper describes the protocol for the development of a European COS for FI. Methods Patient interviews and a systematic review of the literature will be performed to identify patient-, physician- and researcher-oriented outcomes. The outcomes will be categorised using the COMET taxonomy and put forward to a group of patients, physicians (i.e. colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists and general practitioners) and researchers in a Delphi consensus exercise. This exercise will consist of up to three web-based rounds in which participants will prioritise and condense the list of outcomes, which is expected to result in consensus. A consensus meeting with participants from all stakeholder groups will take place to reach a final agreement on the COS. Discussion This study protocol describes the development of a European COS to improve reliability and consistency of outcome reporting in FI studies, thereby improving evidence synthesis and patient care

Construct validity and reliability of the Bilateral Vestibulopathy Questionnaire (BVQ)

BackgroundThe Bilateral Vestibulopathy Questionnaire (BVQ) is a recently developed 54-item Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) that evaluates the clinically important symptoms of bilateral vestibulopathy (BVP) and its impact on daily life. This study aimed to assess the construct validity and reliability of the BVQ in a large BVP cohort.MethodsPatients diagnosed with BVP were asked to complete a set of questionnaires, including the BVQ, the EuroQol-5D-5L, the Health Utilities Index, the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Oscillopsia Severity Questionnaire. The construct validity of the BVQ was evaluated by confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses (CFA and EFA), followed by hypotheses testing and known groups validity. Structural properties were explored for each individual item. Reliability was assessed by testing the internal consistency of the BVQ constructs (Cronbach's alpha) and test–retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)].ResultsA total of 148 patients with BVP (50% women, mean age 66 years) completed the set of questionnaires. The CFA did not show a satisfactory model in the original BVQ. However, the EFA showed a four-factor solution with 20 Likert-scale items related to oscillopsia, imbalance, emotion, and cognition. The succeeding CFA provided evidence for construct validity and an acceptable model of fit. Hypothesis testing confirmed that this shortened version validly measures the constructs to be measured. Statistically significant differences in scores between known groups were found, providing further support for good construct validity. The structural properties were acceptable. Cronbach's alpha confirmed good internal consistency for the four constructs, ranging from 0.80 to 0.89. The ICCs of the 20 Likert-scale items and four visual analog scale (VAS) items were interpreted as good (range 0.76–0.93).ConclusionThis study showed evidence of good construct validity of the new shortened version of the BVQ, consisting of four constructs with a total of 20 Likert-scale items and four VAS items. The final 24-item BVQ proved to be a reliable and valid multi-item PROM that captures the clinically important symptoms of BVP and evaluates its impact on daily life. Consequently, the BVQ enables the gathering of high-level evidence of treatment effectiveness in a systematic and quantitative manner

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rubber band ligation versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (Napoleon trial):Study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment option in recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (HD), due to a lack of solid evidence. The Napoleon trial aims to provide high-level evidence on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of repeat rubber band ligation (RBL) versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent HD. Methods: This is a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Patients with recurrent HD grade II and III, >= 18 years of age and who had at least two RBL treatments in the last three years are eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria include previous rectal or anal surgery, rectal radiation, pre-existing sphincter injury or otherwise pathologies of the colon and rectum, pregnancy, presence of hypercoagulability disorders, and medically unfit for surgery (ASA > III). Between June 2020 and May 2022, 558 patients will be randomized to receive either: (1) RBL, (2) sutured mucopexy, or (3) haemorrhoidectomy. The primary outcomes are recurrence after 52 weeks and patient-reported symptoms measured by the PROM-HISS. Secondary outcomes are impact on daily life, treatment satisfaction, early and late complication rates, health-related quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness, and budget impact. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in societal costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) (based on EQ-5D-5L), and healthcare costs per recurrence avoided. Discussion: The best treatment option for recurrent HD remains unknown. The comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies in a randomized controlled trial will provide high-level evidence on the most (cost) effective treatment

Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire)

Background: The aim of this study was to develop, together with the Lung Foundation Netherlands and Dutch Kidney Patients Association, patients and clinicians, a measure to evaluate patient experiences with the orphan drugs pirfenidone (for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF]) and eculizumab (for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome [aHUS]), as well as a generic measure of patient experiences and satisfaction with medications. Methods: Development of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) questionnaire consisted of four phases: literature review (phase I); focus groups and individual patient interviews (phase II); item generation (phase III); and face and content validity testing (phase IV). Literature review aimed to identify existing disease-specific and generic patient experience measures to provide guidance on the domains of medication use relevant to patients, the number of items and type of response categories, and to generate an initial pool of items. Subsequent focus groups and patient interviews were conducted to gain insight into the perceived effectiveness of the therapies, the bur

The development of a faecal incontinence core outcome set: an international Delphi study protocol

PURPOSE Faecal incontinence (FI) is estimated to affect around 7.7% of people. There is a lack of uniformity in outcome definitions, measurement and reporting in FI studies. Until now, there is no general consensus on which outcomes should be assessed and reported in FI research. This complicates comparison between studies and evidence synthesis, potentially leading to recommendations not evidence-based enough to guide physicians in selecting an FI therapy. A solution for this lack of uniformity in reporting of outcomes is the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FI. This paper describes the protocol for the development of a European COS for FI. METHODS Patient interviews and a systematic review of the literature will be performed to identify patient-, physician- and researcher-oriented outcomes. The outcomes will be categorised using the COMET taxonomy and put forward to a group of patients, physicians (i.e. colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists and general practitioners) and researchers in a Delphi consensus exercise. This exercise will consist of up to three web-based rounds in which participants will prioritise and condense the list of outcomes, which is expected to result in consensus. A consensus meeting with participants from all stakeholder groups will take place to reach a final agreement on the COS. DISCUSSION This study protocol describes the development of a European COS to improve reliability and consistency of outcome reporting in FI studies, thereby improving evidence synthesis and patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION This project has been registered in the COMET database on the 1st of April 2020, available at http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1554 . The systematic review has been registered on the PROSPERO database on the 31st of August 2020, available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=202020&VersionID=1381336

Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background/aim</p> <p>The EQ-5D is a generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure that is used for the purpose of economic evaluations of health interventions. Therefore, it has to be responsive to meaningful changes in health in the patient population under investigation. The aim of this study was to investigate the responsiveness of the EQ-5D in breast cancer patients in their first year after treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The subscale global health of the disease-specific HRQoL measure EORTC QLQ-C30 was used as a reference instrument to determine meaningful changes in health and identify subgroups of patients: patients reporting a moderate-large deterioration, small deterioration, a small improvement, moderate-large improvement, or no change in health status. Responsiveness was evaluated by calculating standardized response means (SRMs) in the five subgroups of patients and performing analysis of variance procedures. The two HRQoL measures were filled out two weeks and one year after finalizing curative treatment for breast cancer (n = 192).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The EQ-5D was able to capture both improvements and deteriorations in HRQoL. SRMs of the EQ VAS and EQ-5D Index were close to zero in the subgroup reporting no change and increased and decreased adequately in the subgroups reporting small and moderate changes. Additional analysis of variance procedures showed that the EQ-5D was able to differentiate between subgroups of patients with no change and moderate-large deterioration or improvement in health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The EQ-5D seems an appropriate measure for the purpose of economic evaluations of health intervention in breast cancer patients after treatment.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74071417.</p