Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses are frequently conducted to compare treatments for hepatitis C, which are often associated with complex regimens and serious adverse events. Thus, the purpose of this study was to estimate the utility associated with treatment administration and adverse events of hepatitis C treatments. DESIGN: Health states were drafted based on literature review and clinician interviews. General population participants in the UK valued the health states in time trade-off (TTO) interviews with 10- and 1-year time horizons. The 14 health states described hepatitis C with variations in treatment regimen and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 182 participants completed interviews (50 % female; mean age = 39.3 years). Utilities for health states describing treatment regimens without injections ranged from 0.80 (1 tablet) to 0.79 (7 tablets). Utilities for health states describing oral plus injectable regimens were 0.77 (7 tablets), 0.75 (12 tablets), and 0.71 (18 tablets). Addition of a weekly injection had a disutility of −0.02. A requirement to take medication with fatty food had a disutility of −0.04. Adverse events were associated with substantial disutilities: mild anemia, −0.12; severe anemia, −0.32; flu-like symptoms, −0.21; mild rash, −0.13; severe rash, −0.48; depression, −0.47. One-year TTO scores were similar to these 10-year values. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events and greater treatment regimen complexity were associated with lower utility scores, suggesting a perceived decrease in quality of life beyond the impact of hepatitis C. The resulting utilities may be used in models estimating and comparing the value of treatments for hepatitis C. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0649-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Comparison of acid and enzymatic methods for insulin dosage: Analytical performances and impact on glomerular filtration rate evaluation

Among issues susceptible to hamper a reliable measurement of inulin clearance, those regarding the dosage of inulin are largely neglected. We have compared the analytical performances of 2 commonly used methods of inulin dosage (one “acid” and one “enzymatic” method) and studied their potential impact on the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) value given by inulin clearance. Repeatability, uncertainty and the beta-expectation limits were evaluated from pre-determined serum and urine pools of inulin. Agreement between the two methods was analyzed from 99 inulin clearances performed in renal transplant patients. Impact of the method of dosage on GFR evaluation was simulated according to the respective beta-expectations limits of each method. Overall, intra-assay coefficient of variability and relative bias were inferior to 5% and 10% for both methods. Contrary to the acid method, analytical performance of the enzymatic method was not influenced by the presence of glucose. The relative difference in GFR values obtained with the two methods in transplant patients was − 0.4 ± 10%. Simulations suggested that changes in inulin concentration attributable to analytical error could modify the value of GFR from − 12% to + 28%. In conclusion, while analytical performances are globally acceptable for both methods, they are not strictly equivalent. The impact on the determination of GFR, albeit limited, is not negligible and adds to other sources of inaccuracy. International standardization for the dosage of inulin is necessary