IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i6p685-692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Published Health Utilities in Cost-Utility Analyses: Discrepancies and Issues in Cardiovascular Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Ting Zhou

    (School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
    Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada)

  • Zhiyuan Chen

    (Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada)

  • Hongchao Li

    (School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China)

  • Feng Xie

    (Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
    Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada)

Abstract

Background Health utilities are commonly used as quality weights to calculate quality-adjusted life years in cost-utility analysis (CUA). However, if published health utilities are not properly used, the credibility of CUA could be affected. Objectives To identify discrepancies in using published health utilities in CUAs for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods CVD CUAs in the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry that reported health utilities were included in the analysis. References cited for health utilities in these CUAs were reviewed to identify the original health utility studies. The description and value of health utilities used in the CUA were compared with those reported in the original utility studies. Logistic regression was used to identify the factors that can predict the discrepancy. Results A total of 585 eligible CUAs published between 1977 and 2016 were identified and reviewed. Of these studies, 74.5% were published between 2007 and 2016. 442 CUAs that used a total of 2235 health utilities published in 203 original utility studies were included for the comparison. As compared with those utilities originally reported, only 596 (26.7%) health utilities had the same description and value, whereas 991 health utilities (44.3%) differed in both description and value. Of 1290 health utilities with a different description, 69.1% were due to different severity or disease. No explanation or justification was provided for 1171 (87.4%) of 1340 health utilities with different value. Conclusions There are concerning discrepancies in using published health utilities for CVD CUAs. Given the important role health utilities play in CUAs, authors of CUAs should always refer to the original studies for health utilities and be transparent about how published health utilities are selected and incorporated into CUAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting Zhou & Zhiyuan Chen & Hongchao Li & Feng Xie, 2021. "Using Published Health Utilities in Cost-Utility Analyses: Discrepancies and Issues in Cardiovascular Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(6), pages 685-692, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:6:p:685-692
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211004532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211004532
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211004532?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. Becky Pennington & Monica Hernandez-Alava & Stephen Pudney & Allan Wailoo, 2019. "The Impact of Moving from EQ-5D-3L to -5L in NICE Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 75-84, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guillem López-Casasnovas & José Luis Pinto Prades, 2022. "QALY Maximization and the Social Optimum," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 242(3), pages 111-127, September.

    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. Beth Woods & Aimée Fox & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2021. "Estimating the shares of the value of branded pharmaceuticals accruing to manufacturers and to patients served by health systems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2649-2666, November.
    2. Joanne Gregory & Matthew Dyer & Christopher Hoyle & Helen Mann & Anthony J. Hatswell, 2020. "The validation of published utility mapping algorithms: an example of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D in non-small cell lung cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    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:6:p:685-692. 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.