Methods and issues associated with the use of quality-adjusted life-years

References

• Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health-related quality of life for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol.1(1), 621–680 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N. Engl. J. Med.296(13), 716–721 (1977).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London, UK (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, de Laet C, Leys M. Threshold Values for Cost–Effectiveness in Health Care. KCE reports 100c. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard C. Overseas approaches to decision making. In: Cost Effectiveness Thresholds: Economic and Ethical Issues. Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N (Eds). King’s Fund and Office of Health Economics, London, UK (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC. How much are Americans willing to pay for a quality-adjusted life year? Med. Care46(4), 343–345 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Nord E, Siebert U et al. The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ.19(10), 1117–1127 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D. Preference-based measures: utility and quality-adjusted life years. In: Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials. Fayers P, Hays RD (Eds). Oxford University Press, NY, USA, 405–429 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Keresteci MA, Casey RW, Rosner AJ, Ryan N, Breton MC. Development and initial validation of a new preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for erectile function. Qual. Life Res.13(2), 349–359 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics17(2), 151–165 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci.10, 129–136 (1976).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr RD, Horsman J. Guide to Design and Development of Health-State Utility Instrumentation. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, ON, Canada (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health11(2), 322–333 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance GW. Methods for Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ.5(1), 1–30 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med. Care38(Suppl. 9), II138–II150 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, NJ, USA (1944).
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Shakespeare A, Kind P. Preferences for schizophrenia-related health states: a comparison of patients, caregivers and psychiatrists. Int. Clin. Psychopharmacol.11(2), 101–108 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The general health policy model: an integrated approach. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Spilker B (Ed.). Lippencott-Raven Publishers, PA, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann. Med.33(5), 337–343 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, Torrance GW, Rosenbaum P, Weitzman S. A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status of survivors of childhood cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.10(6), 923–928 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics7(6), 490–502 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care.40(2), 113–128 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ.21(2), 271–292 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrillo J, Cairns J. Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation. Exp. Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.8(5), 453–461 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F. The Measurement and Validation of Health States Using EQ-5D: a European Perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care30(6), 473–483 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ara R, Brazier J. Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available. Value Health12(2), 346–353 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanmer J. Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS scores from the SF-12 or SF-36. Value Health12(6), 958–966 (2009).
   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. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64(5), 497–506 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryback DG. Measuring health-related quality of life. Workshop on Advancing Social Sciencer Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. The National Academies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, DC, USA (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the national health measurement study. Med. Care45(12), 1162–1170 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London, UK (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ, Lacey LA, Feagan BG, Niecko T, Miller DW, Townsend RJ. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire and Crohn’s disease activity index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health10(3), 214–220 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Wilke C, Jung E, Patel S, Stavem K, Lee TA. Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respir. Med.102(4), 519–536 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, Sorensen S, Togias A. Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multiattribute asthma symptom utility index. Chest114(4), 998–1007 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, Thompson C, Togias A. Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute rhinitis symptom utility index. Qual. Life Res.7(8), 693–702 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlinson G, Bremner KE, Ritvo P, Naglie G, Krahn MD. Development and validation of a utility weighting function for the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS). Med. Decis. Making doi:10.1177/0272989X11407203 (2011) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Kawata AK, Harnam N, Chen WH, Hays RD, Cella D. Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Qual. Life Res.18(6), 783–791 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ.11(2), 215–225 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rentz AM, Kowalski JW, Walt J et al. Development of a preference-based index from the NEI visual function questionnaire-25. Qual. Life Res. (2011) (In Press).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Guscott R. Cost–utility analysis in depression: the McSad utility measure for depression health states. Psychiatr. Serv.51(9), 1171–1176 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard AS, Lai JS, Nickolov A. Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy – general. Value Health10(4), 266–272 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C. Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: the King’s Health Questionnaire. Med. Decis. Making28(1), 113–126 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamers LM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Buijt I. The use of disease-specific outcome measures in cost-utility analysis: the development of Dutch societal preference weights for the FACT-L scale. Pharmacoeconomics25(7), 591–603 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna SP, Doughty N, Meads DM, Doward LC, Pepke-Zaba J. The Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR): a measure of health-related quality of life and quality of life for patients with pulmonary hypertension. Qual. Life Res.15(1), 103–115 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health12(1), 159–166 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrillo J. Development and validation of the EXACT-U to report utilities for COPD exacerbations: a comparison of statistical inference and multi-attribute utility theory methods. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Stevens K, McCabe C, Brazier J, Roberts J. Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: a comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system. J. Health Econ.26(5), 992–1002 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health12(Suppl. 1), S10–S15 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health12(Suppl. 1), S5–S9 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schackman BR, Teixeira PA, Weitzman G, Mushlin AI, Jacobson IM. Quality-of-life tradeoffs for hepatitis C treatment: do patients and providers agree? Med. Decis. Making28(2), 233–242 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goldberg JH. Being there is important, but getting there matters too: the role of path in the valuation process. Med. Decis. Making26(4), 323–337 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Fowler FJ Jr, Cleary PD, Massagli MP, Weissman J, Epstein A. The role of reluctance to give up life in the measurement of the values of health states. Med. Decis. Making15(3), 195–200 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Happich M, Moock J, von Lengerke T. Health state valuation methods and reference points: the case of tinnitus. Value Health12(1), 88–95 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kolominsky-Rabas PL, Caro JJ. The Hanover consensus: helpful for German decision-makers? Value Health11(4), 545–546, discussion 547–548 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipscomb J, Drummond M, Fryback D, Gold M, Revicki D. Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value Health12(Suppl. 1), S18–S26 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar