Article

Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States.

University of Colorado Department of Economics, Boulder, USA.
Medical Decision Making (Impact Factor: 2.27). 01/2006; 26(4):410-20. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06290495
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine has called for an "off-the-shelf" catalogue of nationally representative, community-based preference scores for health states, illnesses, and conditions. A previous review of cost-effectiveness analyses found that 77% did not incorporate community-based preferences, and 33% used arbitrary expert or author judgment. These results highlight the necessity of making a wide array of appropriate, community-based estimates more accessible to cost-effectiveness researchers.
To provide nationally representative EQ-5D index scores for chronic ICD-9 codes.
The nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) was pooled (2000-2002) to create a data set of 38,678 adults. Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression methods were used to estimate the marginal disutility of each condition, controlling for age, comorbidity, gender, race, ethnicity, income, and education.
Most chronic conditions, age, comorbidity, income, and education were highly statistically significant predictors of EQ-5D index scores. Homoskedasticity and normality assumptions were rejected, suggesting only CLAD estimates are theoretically unbiased. The magnitude and statistical significance of coefficients varied by analytic method. OLS and Tobit coefficients were on average 60% and 143% greater than CLAD, respectively. The marginal disutility of 95 chronic ICD-9 codes as well as unadjusted mean, median, and 25th and 75th percentiles are reported.
This research provides nationally representative, community-based EQ-5D index scores associated with a wide variety of chronic ICD-9 codes that can be used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New regimens for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have shorter treatment durations and increased rates of sustained virologic response compared with existing therapies but are extremely expensive. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatments under different assumptions about their price and efficacy. Discrete-event simulation. Published literature. Treatment-naive patients infected with chronic HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3. Lifetime. Societal. Usual care (boceprevir-ribavirin-pegylated interferon [PEG]) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG and 3 PEG-free regimens: sofosbuvir-simeprevir, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir. For genotypes 2 and 3, usual care (ribavirin-PEG) was compared with sofosbuvir-ribavirin, sofosbuvir-daclatasvir, and sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin (genotype 3 only). Discounted costs (in 2014 U.S. dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Assuming sofosbuvir, simeprevir, daclatasvir, and ledipasvir cost $7000, $5500, $5500, and $875 per week, respectively, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was cost-effective for genotype 1 and cost $12 825 more per QALY than usual care. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost $110 000 and $691 000 per QALY, respectively. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin cost $73 000 per QALY, sofosbuvir-ribavirin was more costly and less effective than usual care, and sofosbuvir-daclatasvir cost more than $396 000 per QALY at assumed prices. Sofosbuvir-ledipasvir was the optimal strategy in most simulations for genotype 1 and would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $5500. For genotype 2, sofosbuvir-ribavirin-PEG would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $2250 per week. For genotype 3, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir-ribavirin would be cost-saving if sofosbuvir cost less than $1500 per week. Data are lacking on real-world effectiveness of new treatments and some prices. From a societal perspective, novel treatments for HCV are cost-effective compared with usual care for genotype 1 and probably genotype 3 but not for genotype 2. CVS Health.
    Annals of internal medicine 03/2015; 162(6):407-419. DOI:10.7326/M14-1152 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molti studi osservazionali hanno mostrato che un numero relativamente modesto di fattori di ri-schio è associato a una quota significativa di mortalità e morbilità. Il fumo e la pressione alta so-no responsabili del maggior numero di decessi negli Stati Uniti. Anche altri fattori di rischio me-tabolici, dietetici e relativi allo stile di vita sono tra le principali cause di mortalità. Le strategie di politica sanitaria mirate alla prevenzione necessitano di essere ottimizzate e ciò richiede una migliore informazione sull'efficacia e sui costi degli interventi volti a contrastare i fattori di ri-schio. Alcuni studi recenti si sono posti l'obiettivo di valutare il rapporto costo-efficacia delle at-tività di prevenzione e di stimare i margini di miglioramento e le conseguenze sulla salute pubbli-ca della loro applicazione in condizioni di elevata performance. Per esempio, attualmente, circa il 78% degli adulti di età compresa tra 20 e 80 anni negli Stati Uniti è candidato per almeno una attività di prevenzione. Se tutti ricevessero gli interventi necessari (performance teorica del 100%), le prevalenze di infarto del miocardio e di ictus si ridurrebbero di circa il 63% e il 31%, rispettivamente; l'applicazione ai massimi livelli di performance realisticamente attuabili compor-terebbe comunque una riduzione del 36% e del 20%, rispettivamente. La realizzazione di tutte le attività di prevenzione determinerebbe un aumento medio di 1,3 anni della speranza di vita per gli adulti americani. I maggiori benefici provengono dalla prescrizione di acido acetilsalicilico (ASA) a soggetti ad alto rischio cardiovascolare, dal controllo dello stato prediabetico, dal calo ponderale nei soggetti obesi, dalla riduzione della pressione arteriosa nei diabetici e dall'abbas-samento del colesterolo LDL in persone con coronaropatie. Nonostante le evidenze di efficacia, sono ancora ampi i margini di implementazione. Modelli matematici hanno previsto su base an-nuale che ogni aumento del 10% nel trattamento dell'ipertensione comporterebbe 14.000 ulte-riori decessi evitati e ogni aumento del 10% nel trattamento del colesterolo LDL o nella profilas-si con ASA porterebbe a 8.000 ulteriori decessi evitati in soggetti di età inferiore a 80 anni. L'u-so ottimale dei diversi interventi potrebbe consentire di evitare 50.000-100.000 morti l'anno. Tuttavia, la maggior parte delle attività di prevenzione comporta un sensibile aumento dei costi. Se le strategie preventive devono raggiungere il loro pieno potenziale, è necessario identificare ap-procci efficaci per ridurre i costi e per garantire attività di prevenzione in modo più efficiente.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Proton therapy in pediatrics may improve the risk/benefit profile of radiotherapy at a greater upfront financial cost, but it may prove to be cost effective if chronic medical complications can be avoided. Tools to assist with decision making are needed to aid in selecting pediatric patients for protons, and cost-effectiveness models can provide an objective method for this.METHODSA Markov cohort-simulation model was developed to assess the expected costs and effectiveness for specific radiation doses to the hypothalamus with protons versus photons in pediatric patients. Costing data included cost of investment and the diagnosis and management of growth hormone deficiency. Longitudinal outcomes data were used to inform risk parameters for the model. With costs in 2012 US dollars and effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to measure outcomes.RESULTSProton therapy was cost effective for some scenarios based on the difference in hypothalamic sparing. Although some scenarios were not cost effective, others were not only cost effective for proton therapy but also demonstrated that protons were cost saving compared with photons.CONCLUSIONS The current results provide the first evidence-based guide for identifying children with brain tumors who may benefit the most from proton therapy with respect to endocrine dysfunction. Proton therapy may be more cost effective for scenarios in which radiation dose to the hypothalamus can be spared, but protons may not be cost effective when tumors are involving or directly adjacent to the hypothalamus if there is a high dose to this structure. Cancer 2015. © 2015 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 01/2015; DOI:10.1002/cncr.29209 · 5.20 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
6 Downloads
Available from
Nov 17, 2014