IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i3p366-372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in the Selection of Health State Utility Values by Sponsorship in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Nathaniel Hendrix

    (The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA)

  • David D. Kim

    (Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
    Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Krishna S. Patel

    (School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA)

  • Beth Devine

    (The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
    School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
    Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA)

Abstract

Background Health state utility values (HSUVs) are among the most influential attributes of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Our objective was to evaluate whether industry-funded studies select systematically different HSUVs as compared with studies without industry funding. Methods Among 10 diseases with high disease burden in the United States, we further identified 31 progressive health states. We then searched the Tufts Medical Center’s CEA Registry to identify studies that included HSUVs and were submitted to the registry between 2002 and 2019. Two reviewers mapped the free-text descriptions of health states onto the 31 predefined health states. We analyzed the effect of industry funding on the point estimates of these HSUVs with a beta regression. We also analyzed the difference between related health states within studies by funding source with a linear regression. Results After identifying 26,222 HSUVs from 4198 CEAs, we matched 2573 HSUVs to the 31 predefined health states. We observed large variations within each health state: 12 of 31 health states included a range of HSUVs greater than 0.5. The point estimate model showed 1 statistically significant difference of 31 comparisons between studies with any industry funding and those without. The utility difference model found 3 significant differences out of 39 comparisons between CEAs with any industry funding and those without. Limitations Inclusion of unpublished CEAs may have affected our conclusions about the effect of industry funding on selection of HSUVs. We also relied on free-text descriptions of health states available in the CEA Registry and did not include adjustment for multiple comparisons. Conclusion Limited evidence exists that industry-funded studies select different HSUVs compared to non-industry-funded studies for the health states we considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathaniel Hendrix & David D. Kim & Krishna S. Patel & Beth Devine, 2021. "Differences in the Selection of Health State Utility Values by Sponsorship in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(3), pages 366-372, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:366-372
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20985821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20985821
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20985821?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Micah Rose & Stephen Rice & Dawn Craig, 2018. "Does Methodological Guidance Produce Consistency? A Review of Methodological Consistency in Breast Cancer Utility Value Measurement in NICE Single Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 97-107, June.
    2. Feng Xie & Michael Zoratti & Kelvin Chan & Don Husereau & Murray Krahn & Oren Levine & Tammy Clifford & Holger Schunemann & Gordon Guyatt, 2019. "Toward a Centralized, Systematic Approach to the Identification, Appraisal, and Use of Health State Utility Values for Reimbursement Decision Making: Introducing the Health Utility Book (HUB)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 371-379, May.
    3. Dirk Müller & Marion Danner & Rita Schmutzler & Christoph Engel & Kirsten Wassermann & Björn Stollenwerk & Stephanie Stock & Kerstin Rhiem, 2019. "Economic modeling of risk-adapted screen-and-treat strategies in women at high risk for breast or ovarian cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 739-750, July.
    4. Patricia Blank & Martin Filipits & Peter Dubsky & Florian Gutzwiller & Michael Lux & Jan Brase & Karsten Weber & Margaretha Rudas & Richard Greil & Sibylle Loibl & Thomas Szucs & Ralf Kronenwett & Mat, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prognostic Gene Expression Signature-Based Stratification of Early Breast Cancer Patients," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 179-190, February.
    5. Nasuh C. Büyükkaramikli & Saskia Groot & Rob Riemsma & Debra Fayter & Nigel Armstrong & Piet Portegijs & Steven Duffy & Jos Kleijnen & Maiwenn J. Al, 2019. "Ribociclib with an Aromatase Inhibitor for Previously Untreated, HR-Positive, HER2-Negative, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technol," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 141-153, February.
    6. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq, 2017. "The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 77-88, December.
    7. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    8. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    9. Dirk Müller & Marion Danner & Kerstin Rhiem & Björn Stollenwerk & Christoph Engel & Linda Rasche & Lisa Borsi & Rita Schmutzler & Stephanie Stock, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in German women with a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(3), pages 341-353, April.
    10. Caroline S Clarke & Rachael M Hunter & Ian Shemilt & Victoria Serra-Sastre, 2017. "Multi-arm Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) comparing different durations of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer, from the English NHS payer perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Claudine Bommer & Judith Lupatsch & Nicole Bürki & Matthias Schwenkglenks, 2022. "Cost–utility analysis of risk-reducing strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA-mutation carriers in Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(5), pages 807-821, July.
    12. Gregory Katz & Olivier Romano & Cyril Foa & Anne-Lise Vataire & Jean-Victor Chantelard & Robert Hervé & Hugues Barletta & Axel Durieux & Jean-Pierre Martin & Rémy Salmon, 2015. "Economic Impact of Gene Expression Profiling in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Quang A. Le, 2016. "Structural Uncertainty of Markov Models for Advanced Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(5), pages 629-640, July.
    14. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Khadka, Jyoti & Kwon, Joseph & Petrou, Stavros & Lancsar, Emily & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    16. Sandjar Djalalov & Linda Rabeneck & George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Robert Hilsden & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2014. "A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 809-818, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:366-372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.