Article

Cost-utility analysis and quality adjusted life years.

College of Pharmacy, Pharmacotherapy Outcomes Research Center, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy 02/2005; 19(1):57-61. DOI: 10.1080/J354v19n01_10
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cost utility analysis is a form of cost-effectiveness analysis in which outcomes are adjusted for quality and quantity of life. This type of analysis is used widely in Europe and is being used increasingly in the United States. This article provides an overview of cost utility analysis and quality adjusted life years, a commonly used effectiveness measure in CUA when comparing two or more treatments or interventions.

0 Followers
 · 
99 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background Non-pharmacological, non-surgical interventions are recommended as the first line of treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. There is evidence that exercise therapy is effective for reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee OA, some evidence that exercise therapy is effective for hip OA, and early indications that manual therapy may be efficacious for hip and knee OA. There is little evidence as to which approach is more effective, if benefits endure, or if providing these therapies is cost-effective for the management of this disorder. The MOA Trial (Management of OsteoArthritis) aims to test the effectiveness of two physiotherapy interventions for improving disability and pain in adults with hip or knee OA in New Zealand. Specifically, our primary objectives are to investigate whether: 1. Exercise therapy versus no exercise therapy improves disability at 12 months; 2. Manual physiotherapy versus no manual therapy improves disability at 12 months; 3. Providing physiotherapy programmes in addition to usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone in the management of osteoarthritis at 24 months. Methods This is a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial. We plan to recruit 224 participants with hip or knee OA. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive either: (a) a supervised multi-modal exercise therapy programme; (b) an individualised manual therapy programme; (c) both exercise therapy and manual therapy; or, (d) no trial physiotherapy. All participants will continue to receive usual medical care. The outcome assessors, orthopaedic surgeons, general medical practitioners, and statistician will be blind to group allocation until the statistical analysis is completed. The trial is funded by Health Research Council of New Zealand Project Grants (Project numbers 07/199, 07/200). Discussion The MOA Trial will be the first to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing physiotherapy programmes of this kind, for the management of pain and disability in adults with hip or knee OA. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ref: ACTRN12608000130369.
    Trials 02/2009; 10. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-10-11 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of renal transplantation and hemodialysis among end-stage renal disease patients.
    09/2010; 24(3):173. DOI:10.4285/jkstn.2010.24.3.173
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Utility estimates are important health outcomes for economic evaluation of care and treatment interventions for patients with HIV/AIDS. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of utility measurements to examine the performance of preference-based instruments, estimate health utility of patients with HIV/AIDS by disease stages, and investigate changes in their health utility over the course of antiretroviral treatment. Methods We searched PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science for English-language peer-reviewed papers published during 2000-2013. We selected 49 studies that used 3 direct and 6 indirect preference based instruments to make a total of 218 utility measurements. Random effect models with robust estimation of standard errors and multivariate fractional polynomial regression were used to obtain the pooled estimates of utility and model their trends. Results Reliability of direct-preference measures tended to be lower than other types of measures. Utility elicited by two of the indirect preference measures - SF-6D (0.171) and EQ-5D (0.114), and that of Time-Trade off (TTO) (0.151) was significantly different than utility elicited by Standard Gamble (SG). Compared to asymptomatic HIV patients, symptomatic and AIDS patients reported a decrement of 0.025 (p=0.40) and 0.176 (p=0.001) in utility scores, adjusting for method of assessment. In longitudinal studies, the pooled health utility of HIV/AIDS patients significantly decreased in the first 3 months of treatment, and rapidly increased afterwards. Magnitude of change varied depending on the method of assessment and length of antiretroviral treatment. Conclusion The study provides an accumulation of evidence on measurement properties of health utility estimates that can help inform the selection of instruments for future studies. The pooled estimates of health utilities and their trends are useful in economic evaluation and policy modelling of HIV/AIDS treatment strategies.
    BMC Health Services Research 12/2014; 15(1). DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0640-z · 1.66 Impact Factor
Show more