In a Child's Shoes: Composite Time Trade-Off Valuations for EQ-5D-Y-3L with Different Proxy Perspectives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EQ-5D-Y-3L health states are commonly valued by asking adults to complete stated preference tasks, 'given their views about a 10-year-old child' (hereafter referred to as proxy 1). The use of this perspective has been a source of debate. In this paper, we investigated an alternative proxy perspective: i.e. adults considered what they think a 10-year old-child would decide for itself (hereafter, proxy 2 (substitute)]. Our main objective was to explore how the outcomes, dispersion and response patterns of a composite time trade-off valuation differ between proxy 1 and proxy 2. METHODS: A team of four trained interviewers completed 402 composite time trade-off interviews following the EQ-5D-Y-3L protocol. Respondents were randomly allocated to value health states in either the proxy 1 or proxy 2 (substitute) perspective. Each respondent valued ten health states with the perspective they were assigned to, as well as one health state with the alternative perspective (33333). RESULTS: The use of different proxy perspectives yielded differences in EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. For states in which children had considerable pain and were very worried, sad or unhappy, respondents' valuations were lower in proxy 1 than in proxy 2 (substitute) perspectives, by about 0.2. Within-subject variation across health states was lower for proxy 2 (substitute) than proxy 1 perspectives. Analyses of response patterns suggest that data for proxy 2 (substitute) perspectives were less clustered. CONCLUSIONS: There are systematic differences between composite time trade-off responses given by adults deciding for children and adults considering what children would want for themselves. In addition to warranting further qualitative exploration, such differences contribute to the ongoing normative discussion surrounding the source and perspective used for valuation of child and adolescent health.

Assessing the Impact of EQ-5D Country-specific Value Sets on Cost-utility Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of EQ-5D country-specific value sets on cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: Data from 2 randomized controlled trials on low back pain (LBP) and depression were used. 3L value sets were identified from the EuroQol Web site. A nonparametric crosswalk was employed for each tariff to obtain the likely 5L values. Differences in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between countries were tested using paired t tests, with United Kingdom as reference. Cost-utility outcomes were estimated for both studies and both EQ-5D versions, including differences in QALYs and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: For the 3L, QALYs ranged between 0.650 (Taiwan) and 0.892 (United States) in the LBP study and between 0.619 (Taiwan) and 0.879 (United States) in the depression study. In both studies, most country-specific QALY estimates differed statistically significantly from that of the United Kingdom. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between &OV0556;2044/QALY (Taiwan) and &OV0556;5897/QALY (Zimbabwe) in the LBP study and between &OV0556;38,287/QALY (Singapore) and &OV0556;96,550/QALY (Japan) in the depression study. At the NICE threshold of &OV0556;23,300/QALY (≈£20,000/QALY), the intervention's probability of being cost-effective versus control ranged between 0.751 (Zimbabwe) and 0.952 (Taiwan) and between 0.230 (Canada) and 0.396 (Singapore) in the LBP study and depression study, respectively. Similar results were found for the 5L, with extensive differences in ICERs and moderate differences in the probability of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the use of different EQ-5D country-specific value sets impacts on cost-utility outcomes. Therefore, to account for the fact that health state preferences are affected by sociocultural differences, relevant country-specific value sets should be used.

Cost-effectiveness of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation with and without physiotherapy support for adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of stand-alone and blended internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in comparison with usual care (UC) for chronic vestibular syndromes in general practice. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a three-armed, individually randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 59 Dutch general practices. PARTICIPANTS: 322 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Stand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, this intervention was supplemented with face-to-face physiotherapy support. UC group participants received usual general practice care without restrictions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form (VSS-SF), clinically relevant response (≥3 points VSS-SF improvement). RESULTS: Mean societal costs in both the stand-alone and blended VR groups were statistically non-significantly higher than in the UC group (mean difference (MD) €504, 95% CI -1082 to 2268; and €916, 95% CI -663 to 2596). Both stand-alone and blended VR groups reported non-significantly more QALYs than the UC group (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.04; and 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03), and significantly better VSS-SF Scores (MD 3.8 points, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.0; and 3.3 points, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.2). For stand-alone VR compared with UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €24 161/QALY, €600/point improvement in VSS-SF and €8000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF. For blended VR versus UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €123 335/QALY, €900/point improvement in VSS-SF and €24 000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF. CONCLUSION: Stand-alone and blended internet-based VR non-significantly increased QALYs and significantly reduced vestibular symptoms compared with UC, while costs in both groups were non-significantly higher. Stand-alone VR has the highest probability to be cost-effective compared with UC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.

A brief cognitive behavioural intervention is cost-effective for primary care patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms compared to usual care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioural intervention for patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) provided by a mental health nurse practitioner (MHNP) in primary care in comparison with usual care. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes were the RAND-36 physical component summary score (PCS), somatic symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15), and anxiety and depression symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)). Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. We used non-parametric bootstrapping to estimate statistical uncertainty. The bootstrapped cost-effect pairs were used to estimate cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Mean total costs in the intervention group were significantly lower than in the usual care group (mean difference - 2300€, 95% CI -3257 to -134). The mean difference in QALYs was 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.04), in PCS 2.46 (95% CI 1.44 to 3.47), in PHQ-15 -0.26 (95% CI -0.81 to 0.28), and in HADS -0.07 (-0.81 to 0.67). At a willingness to pay of 0 € per additional unit of effect, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.93 for QALYs and 0.92 for PCS, PHQ-15 and HADS scores. CONCLUSION: Our intervention is cost-effective compared to usual care for patients with MUPS. Implementation of the intervention has the potential to result in a significant decline in costs. However, large scale implementation would require increased deployment of MHNPs.

Five-year cost-effectiveness analysis of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) physical activity intervention for men versus no intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing physical activity reduces the risk of chronic illness including Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer. Lifestyle interventions can increase physical activity but few successfully engage men. This study aims to investigate the 5 year cost-effectiveness of EuroFIT, a program to improve physical activity tailored specifically for male football (soccer) fans compared to a no intervention comparison group. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model in which the impact of improving physical activity on five chronic health conditions (colorectal cancer, Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and depression) and mortality was modelled. We estimated costs from a societal perspective and expressed benefits as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). We obtained data from a 4-country (England, Netherlands, Portugal and Norway) pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating EuroFIT, epidemiological and cohort studies, and meta-analyses. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of uncertainty in the model's parameter values on the cost-effectiveness results. We used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate uncertainty and presented this using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). We tested the robustness of the base case analysis using five scenario analyses. RESULTS: Average costs over 5 years per person receiving EuroFIT were €14,663 and per person receiving no intervention €14,598. Mean QALYs over 5 years were 4.05 per person for EuroFIT and 4.04 for no intervention. Thus, the average incremental cost per person receiving EuroFIT was €65 compared to no intervention, while the average QALY gain was 0.01. This resulted in an ICER of €5206 per QALY gained. CEACs show that the probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared to no intervention is 0.53, 0.56 and 0.58 at thresholds of €10,000, €22,000 and €34,000 per QALY gained, respectively. When using a time horizon of 10 years, the results suggest that EuroFIT is more effective and less expensive compared to (i.e. dominant over) no intervention with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 0.63 at a threshold of €22,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude the EuroFIT intervention is not cost-effective compared to no intervention over a period of 5 years from a societal perspective, but is more effective and less expensive (i.e. dominant) after 10 years. We thus suggest that EuroFIT can potentially improve public health in a cost-effective manner in the long term.

The assessment of new drugs for asthma and COPD: a Delphi study examining the perspectives of Italian payers and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are disorders of the lungs characterized by airflow obstruction, inflammation and tissue remodeling. Management of patients with these diseases is complex and the improvement of diagnostic-therapeutic strategies represents a critical challenge for the healthcare system. In this context, investigating the criteria and information needed for an appropriate and effective evaluation of incoming treatment options is crucial to ensure that clinicians and policy-makers are provided with the best available evidence to make decisions aimed at improving patient outcomes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the degree of agreement among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts on issues crucial to the evaluation of new drugs for asthma and COPD and to appropriately manage the clinical pathway for patients. METHOD: This research was conducted using an e-Delphi technique organized in three subsequent rounds and involving a panel of ten experts (six regional and local payers and four clinicians). Panelists were asked to comment in written form on a set of statements, explaining qualitatively the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the assertions. Statements were subsequently modified and resubmitted for assessment. RESULTS: Panelists expressed their opinions during each round and, after round III, a consensus document was finalized. The degree of consensus was high among experts and concerned five main topics: (a) the need to address current unmet needs of patients with asthma or COPD, (b) the importance of further studies and real-life information in the evaluation of treatments, (c) existing evidence and evidence needed to assess drugs, (d) critical issues in obtaining a positive evaluation from regional and local authorities for new treatments to be included in regional formularies and to have an important place in therapeutic categories, and (e) the major obstacles to the appropriate administration of drugs and management of patients. CONCLUSION: The final document highlights that no proof of difference among drugs exists, that evidence on final endpoints (and particularly on mortality) should be strengthened and that actions regarding risk factors, appropriate diagnosis, patient staging and adherence to therapy are particularly important for a better clinical management.