Differences in utility elicitation methods in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

References

• US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Deaths: Final data for 2013. Hyattsville (MD): U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nichols M, Townsend N, Scarborough P, et al. Cardiovascular disease in Europe 2014: epidemiological update. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2950-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/
   Google Scholar
• European Heart Network and European Society of Cardiology. European cardiovascular disease statistics: 2012 edition. Oxford, UK: Health Economics Research Centre/Department of Public Health, University of Oxford; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;131:e29-e322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Barr RD, Furlong W, et al. Quality of life of the treatment process in pediatric oncology: an approach to measurement. In: Osaba D, editor. Effect of cancer on quality of life. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1991. p. 447-86
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D. Health utility estimation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2002;2:99-108
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5:1-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Designing and conducting cost-utility analyses. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. p. 1005-12
   Google Scholar
• Hallan S, Asberg A, Indredavik B, et al. Quality of life after cerebrovascular stroke: a systematic study of patients’ preferences for different functional outcomes. J Intern Med 1999;246:309-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slot KB, Berge E. Thrombolytic treatment for stroke: patient preferences for treatment, information, and involvement. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;18:17-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Utilities Inc. Multi-attribute health status classification system: Dundas, Ontario, Canada: Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). 2017. Available at: http://www.healthutilities.com/hui3.htm
   Google Scholar
• Health Utilities Inc. Multi-attribute health status classification system: Dundas, Ontario, Canada: Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2). 2017. Available at: http://www.healthutilities.com/hui2.htm
   Google Scholar
• EQ-5D. How to use EQ-5D. 2017. Rottendam, The Netherlands. Available at: http://www.euroqol.org
   Google Scholar
• Optum. User's manual for the SF-36v2 health survey. 2017. San Francisco, California, USA. Available at: https://www.qualitymetric.com/
   Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Stewart KD, Gandra SR, et al. Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, et al. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001;21:329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5 utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:1571-82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo N, Johnson J, Coons SJ. Using instrument-defined health state transitions to estimate minimally important differences for four preference-based health-related quality of life instruments. Med Care 2010;48:365-71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM. The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD 2005;2:91-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001;33:344-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furlong W, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, et al. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University; 1990
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D. Preference-based measures: utility and quality adjusted life years. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 405-31
   Google Scholar
• Farivar SS, Liu H, Hays RD. Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004;4:515-23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang Y, Xie F, Kong MC, et al. Patient-reported health preferences of anticoagulant-related outcomes. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2015;40:268-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraai IH, Vermeulen KM, Luttik ML, et al. Preferences of heart failure patients in daily clinical practice: quality of life or longevity? Eur J Heart Fail 2013;15:1113-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez JE, Ortega T, Rodriguez C, et al. Efficacy of peritoneal ultrafiltration in the treatment of refractory congestive heart failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:605-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevanovic J, Pehlivanoglou P, Postma MJ. Meta-analysis of preference-based quality of life values in heart failure. Value Health 2014;17:A197-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wannasiri Y, Kapol N. Measuring health utility in Thai stroke patients. Value Health 2011;14:A384
   Google Scholar
• Darlington AS, Dippel DW, Ribbers GM, et al. Coping strategies as determinants of quality of life in stroke patients: a longitudinal study. Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:401-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Smedt D, Clays E, Annemans L, et al. EQ-5D versus SF-12 in coronary patients: are they interchangeable? Value Health 2014;17:84-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Spritzer K, Hays RD, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making 2012;32:273-86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han Y, Wu J, Xu J, et al. Health-related quality of life in Chinese patients with stable angina pectoris. Value Health 2012;15:A634
   Google Scholar
• Wu J, Han Y, Gao Y, et al. Validation 36 and comparison of the SF-6D and EQ-5D in Chinese patients with stable angina pectoris. Value Health 2012;15:A634-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton GR, Sach TH, Doherty M, et al. An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions. Eur J Health Econ 2008;9:237-49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005;14:207-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haacke C, Althaus A, Spottke A, et al. Long-term outcome after stroke: evaluating health-related quality of life using utility measurements. Stroke 2006;37:193-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH, et al. Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke 2004;35:607-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Han Y, Xu J, et al. Chronic stable angina is associated with lower health-related quality of life: evidence from Chinese patients. PLoS One 2014;9:e97294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebert PL, Sisk JE, Wang JJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of nurse-led disease management for heart failure in an ethnically diverse urban community. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:540–548
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Tally S, Hays RD, et al. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:497–506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalonde L, Clarke AE, Joseph L, et al. Conventional and chained standard gambles in the assessment of coronary heart disease prevention and treatment. Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group. Med Decis Making 1999;19:149-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi MS, Luckhaupt S, Mrus JM, et al. Do medical house officers value the health of veterans differently from the health of non-veterans? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lewis EF, Johnson PA, Jonson W, et al. references for quality of life or survival expressed by patients with heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant 2001;20:1016-1024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Owens DK. The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1829-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nease RF Jr, Kneeland T, O’Connor GT, et al. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA 1995;273:1185-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eurich DT, Johnson JA, Reid KJ, et al. Assessing responsiveness of generic and specific health related quality of life measures in heart failure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohn CG, Parker MW, Limone BL, et al. Impact of angina frequency on health utility values of patients with chronic stable angina. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;12:39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee HY, Hwang JS, Jeng JS, et al. Quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and loss of QALE for patients with ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage: a 13-year follow-up. Stroke 2010;41:739-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg J, Lindgren P, Mejhert M, et al. Determinants of utility based on the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire in patients with chronic heart failure and their change over time: results from the Swedish Heart Failure registry. Value Health 2015;18:439-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy R, Sackley CM, Miller P, et al. Effect of experience of severe stroke on subjective valuations of quality of life after stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;70:679-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franceschini M, Branchini W, Brianti R, et al. Stroke and rehabilitation: Italian Cooperative Research (ICR2). Eura Medicophys 2003;39:7-17
   Google Scholar
• Hung S, Pickard A, Witt W, et al. Pain and depression in caregivers affected their perception of pain in stroke patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:963-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinburn P, Shingler S, Ong SH, et al. Assessing the health-related quality of life in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure. Br J Cardiol 2013;20:72-6
   Google Scholar
• Smith DW, Davies EW, Wissinger E, et al. A systematic literature review of cardiovascular event utilities. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013;13:767-90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matza LS, Devine MK, Gandra SR, et al. Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities. Value Health 2014;17:A493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Brazier J. Is meta-analysis for utility values appropriate given the potential impact different elicitation methods have on values? Pharmacoeconomics 2015;33:1101-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLernon DJ, Dillon J, Donnan PT. Health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review. Med Decis Making 2008;28:582-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Si L, Winzenberg TM, de Graaff B, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporos Int 2014;25:1987-97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lung TW, Hayes AJ, Hayen A, et al. A meta-analysis of health state valuations for people with diabetes: explaining the variation across methods and implications for economic evaluation. Qual Life Res 2011;20:1669-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djalalov S, Rabeneck L, Tomlinson G, et al. A review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer utilities. Med Decis Making 2014;34:809-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004;13:873-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 2000;38:115-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaarlola A, Pettilä V, Kekki P. Performance of two measures of general health-related quality of life, the EQ-5D and the RAND-36 among critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:2245-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathias SD, Bates MM, Pasta DJ, et al. Use of the Health Utilities Index with stroke patients and their caregivers. Stroke 1997;28:1888-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe F, Michaud K, Wallenstein G. Scale characteristics and mapping accuracy of the US EQ-5D, UK EQ-5D, and SF-6D in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2010;37:1615-25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakthong P, Charoenvisuthiwongs R, Shabunthom R. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores using the UK, US, and Japan preference weights in a Thai sample with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008;6:71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson JA, Nilsson JÅ, Neovius M, et al. National EQ-5D tariffs and quality-adjusted life-year estimation: comparison of UK, US and Danish utilities in south Swedish rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:2163-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw L, Rodgers H, Price C, et al. BoTULS: a multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treating upper limb spasticity due to stroke with botulinum toxin type A. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1–113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 35:1095-1108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijeysundera HC, Tomlinson G, Norris CM, Ghali WA, Ko DT, Krahn MD. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in coronary artery disease: a mapping algorithm using a Bayesian framework. Med Decision Making. 2011; 31:481-493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldsmith KA, Dyer MT, Buxton MJ, Sharples LD. Mapping of the EQ-5D index from clinical outcome measures and demographic variables in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham U-G, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin L-Å, Zethraeus N. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. 2014;23:431-442
   Google Scholar
• Yusof FA, Goh A, Azmi S. Estimating an EQ-5D value set for Malaysia using time trade-off and visual analogue scale methods. 2012;15:S85-S90
   Google Scholar
• Azmi S, Goh A, Fong A, et al. Quality of life among patients with acute coronary syndrome in Malaysia. Value Health Reg Issues. 2015;6:80–83
   Google Scholar