References
- Hartong DT, Berson EL, Dryja TP. Retinitis pigmentosa. Lancet. 2006;368(9549):1795–1809.
- Lange R, Kumagai A, Weiss S, et al. Vision-related quality of life in adults with severe peripheral vision loss: a qualitative interview study. J Patient-Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(1):1–12. doi:10.1186/s41687-020-00281-y
- American Academy of Opthalmology. New treatments for retinitis pigmentosa; 2021. Available from: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/gene-therapy-new-retinitis-pigmentosa-lca-luxturna. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Ahmed I, Johnston Jr RJ Jr, Singh MS. Pluripotent stem cell therapy for retinal diseases. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(15):1279. doi:10.21037/atm-20-4747
- Nuzbrokh Y, Ragi SD, Tsang SH. Gene therapy for inherited retinal diseases. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(15):1278. doi:10.21037/atm-20-4726
- Hinkle JW, Mahmoudzadeh R, Kuriyan AE. Cell-based therapies for retinal diseases: a review of clinical trials and direct to consumer “cell therapy” clinics. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021;12(1):1–9. doi:10.1186/s13287-021-02546-9
- Banhazi J, Williamson N, Bradley H, et al. What Do We Know About Patients’ and Caregivers’ Experiences When Living with the Hereditary Retinal Condition Retinitis Pigmentosa? Copenhagen, Denmark: ISPOR EU; 2019.
- Sallum J, Kaur V, Shaikh J, et al. Epidemiology of mutations in the 65-kDa Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE65) gene-mediated inherited retinal dystrophies: a systematic literature review. Adv Ther. 2022;39:1179–1198. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-02036-7
- Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq033
- Lloyd A, Piglowska N, Ciulla T, et al. Estimation of impact of RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease on quality of life and the potential benefits of gene therapy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(11):1610–1614.
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013–5 the reference case; 2013. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/the-reference-case. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Canada; 2017. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- López Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F, et al. Proposal for a guide for economic evaluation applied to health technologies. Gac Sanit. 2010;24(2):154–170. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2009.07.011
- Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Schubert C. Guidelines for Preparing a Submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Version 5.0. Australian Government, Department of health; 2016.
- China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations Working Group. China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations; 2020 Available from: https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/China-Guidelines-for-Pharmacoeconomic-Evaluations-2020.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Takura T, Moriwaki K. Development of an official guideline for the economic evaluation of drugs/medical devices in Japan. Value Health. 2017;20(3):372–378. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.726
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11: Alternatives to EQ-5D for Generating Health State Utility Values. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011.
- Pezzullo L, Streatfeild J, Simkiss P, Shickle D. The economic impact of sight loss and blindness in the UK adult population. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):63. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2836-0
- Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos‐Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004. doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1
- Nomis. Population estimates - local authority based by single year of age; 2018. Available from: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/livelinks/13687.xlsx. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Office for National Statistics. 2011 Census; 2011. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Office for National Statistics. Employment in the UK; 2019. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/december2019. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Office for National Statistics. Highest level of qualification achieved by people living in UK regions, 2010 to 2018; 2019. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/educationandchildcare/adhocs/10516highestlevelofqualificationachievedbypeoplelivinginukregions2010to2018. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Office for National Statistics. Population estimates by marital status and living arrangements, England and Wales; 2019. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesbymaritalstatusandlivingarrangements. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Office for National Statistics. Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2018; 2019. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/latest. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Janssen B, Szende A; Population norms for the EQ-5D. Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective Based on EQ-5D. Springer Nature; 2014:19–30.
- Goodwin E, Green C, Hawton A. What difference does it make? A comparison of health state preferences elicited from the general population and from people with multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2020;23(2):242–250. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.08.009
- Castejón N, Cappelleri JC, Cuervo J, et al. Social preferences for health states associated with acute myeloid leukemia for patients undergoing treatment in the United Kingdom. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):1–9. doi:10.1186/s12955-018-0897-8
- Czoski-Murray C, Carlton J, Brazier J, Young T, Papo NL, Kang HK. Valuing condition-specific health states using simulation contact lenses. Value Health. 2009;12(5):793–799. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00527.x
- Rentz AM, Kowalski JW, Walt JG, et al. Development of a preference-based index from the national eye institute visual function questionnaire-25. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(3):310–318. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7639
- Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(3):324–330. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00146-4
- Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Busbee B. Quality of life associated with visual loss: a time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with medical health states. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(6):1076–1081. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00254-9
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Voretigene neparvovec for treating inherited retinal dystrophies caused by RPE65 gene mutations; 2019. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hst11. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Na KH, Kim HJ, Kim KH, et al. Prevalence, age at diagnosis, mortality, and cause of death in retinitis pigmentosa in Korea-A nationwide population-based study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;176:157–165. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.014
- Prem Senthil M, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Seeing through their eyes: lived experiences of people with retinitis pigmentosa. Eye. 2017;31(5):741–748. doi:10.1038/eye.2016.315
- Haute Autorité de Santé. Choices in methods for economic evaluation; 2012. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Voretigene neparvovec for biallelic RPE65-mediated retinal disease: effectiveness and value - final evidence report; 2018. Available from: https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MWCEPAC_VORETIGENE_FINAL_EVIDENCE_REPORT_02142018.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Tolley K What are health utilities? 2009. Available from: http://www.bandolier.org.uk/painres/download/What%20is%202009/What_are_health_util.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2022.
- Brazier J, Rowen D, Karimi M, Peasgood T, Tsuchiya A, Ratcliffe J. Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(6):881–891. doi:10.1007/s10198-017-0931-5