Economic burden and quality of life of caregivers of patients with sickle cell disease in the United Kingdom and France: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD), a genetic blood disorder that affects red blood cells and oxygen delivery to body tissues, is characterized by haemolytic anaemia, pain episodes, fatigue, and end-organ damage with acute and chronic dimensions. Caring for patients with SCD imposes a high burden on informal caregivers. This study aims to capture the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and economic burden of caregiving for patients with SCD. METHODS: Validated instruments of HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L, Carer Quality of Life-7 dimensions [CarerQol-7D]) and productivity (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem [WPAI: SHP]) were administered via a cross-sectional online survey to caregivers in the United Kingdom (UK) and France. Demographics, HRQoL, and economic burden data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Economic burden was determined using country-specific minimum and average wage values. Subgroup analysis examined caregivers with and without SCD. RESULTS: Sixty-nine caregivers were recruited (UK, 43; France, 26), 83% were female, and 22% had SCD themselves. The mean (SD) caregiver EQ-5D-5L score was 0.66 (0.28) (UK, 0.62; France, 0.73), and the mean CarerQol-7D score was 80.69 (24.40) (UK, 78.72 [25.79]; France, 83.97 [22.01]). Mental health problems were reported in 72% and 70% of caregivers measured using the EQ-5D-5L and CarerQol-7D, respectively. Financial problems were reported by 68% of caregivers, with mean annual minimum wage productivity losses of £4209 and €3485, increasing to £5391 and €9319 for average wages. Sensitivity analysis determined additional HRQoL decrements for caregivers with and without, SCD. CONCLUSION: Caring for patients with SCD impacts the HRQoL and economic burden of caregivers. Further research to support the complex needs of SCD caregivers is required.

Caregivers play an important role in the lives of the people with sickle cell disease that they care for; however, their mental and physical health and their finances can be affected, particularly if their ability to work is impacted. The extent to which caring for a person with sickle cell disease impacts caregivers is not fully understood. In this study, 69 caregivers of a family member, partner, or friend with sickle cell disease in the United Kingdom or France completed an online survey to share their experiences about how caring for someone with sickle cell disease can impact a caregiver's quality of life and financial well-being. Caregiving negatively affected the quality of life of caregivers compared with people in the general population and caused a large financial and social burden. Around 70% of caregivers reported having mental health problems, 68% reported financial problems, and lost work hours and lost income were not uncommon. More research is needed to understand the specific needs of caregivers of people with sickle cell disease and how best to support them.

Estimating the minimally important difference for the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in cancer.

BACKGROUND: The minimal important difference (MID) is a useful tool to interpret changes in patients' health-related quality of life. This study aims to estimate MIDs for interpreting within-patient change for both components of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire [EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) and utility index] and domains of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for cancer patients. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Cancer 2015 dataset, a longitudinal cohort of Australian cancer patients. Anchor-based approaches were used to estimate MIDs for the EQ-5D-5L index-based utility index [Australia and the United States (US) tariff sets], EQ-VAS scores, and the EORTC QLQ-C30. Clinical [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status] and patient-reported (items 29 and 30 of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-VAS) anchors were assessed for appropriateness by their correlation strength. Clinical change groups (CCGs) were defined a priori for improvement and deterioration based on estimates used in previous literature. MIDs were estimated via linear regression and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: For the index-based utility scores in Australia, the anchor-defined MID estimates were 0.01 to 0.06 for improvement and - 0.04 to -0.03 for deterioration, with a weighted value of 0.03 for improvement and deterioration. The EQ-VAS MID estimate was 5 points for both improvement and deterioration. For the EORTC QLQ-C30, changes of at least 3.64 (improvement) and - 4.28 (deterioration) units on the physical functioning scale, 6.31 (improvement) and - 7.11 (deterioration) units on the role functioning scale, 4.65 (improvement) and - 3.41 (deterioration) units on the emotional functioning scale, and 5.41 (improvement) and - 5.56 (deterioration) units on the social functioning scale were estimated to be meaningful. CONCLUSION: This study identified lower MIDs for the EQ-5D-5L utility index, EQ-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 domain scores, than those reported previously. The use of a real-world cancer-specific panel dataset may reflect smaller MID estimates that are more applicable to cancer patients in the clinical practice, rather than using MIDs that have been estimated from clinical trials.

A scoping review of the use of minimally important difference of EQ-5D utility index and EQ-VAS scores in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Estimates of minimally important differences (MID) can assist interpretation of data collected using patient-reported outcomes (PRO), but variability exists in the emphasis placed on MIDs in health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. This study aimed to identify to what extent information on the MID of a commonly used PRO, the EQ-5D, is required and utilised by selected HTA agencies. METHODS: Technology appraisal (TA) documents from HTA agencies in England, France, Germany, and the US between 2019 and 2021 were reviewed to identify documents which discussed MID of EQ-5D data as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint. RESULTS: Of 151 TAs utilising EQ-5D as a COA endpoint, 58 (38%) discussed MID of EQ-5D data. Discussion of MID was most frequent in Germany, in 75% (n = 12/16) of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) and 44% (n = 34/78) of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, (IQWiG) TAs. MID was predominantly applied to the EQ-VAS (n = 50), most frequently using a threshold of > 7 or > 10 points (n = 13). G-BA and IQWiG frequently criticised MID analyses, particularly the sources of MID thresholds for the EQ-VAS, as they were perceived as being unsuitable for assessing the validity of MID. CONCLUSION: MID of the EQ-5D was not frequently discussed outside of Germany, and this did not appear to negatively impact decision-making of these HTA agencies. While MID thresholds were often applied to EQ-VAS data in German TAs, analyses were frequently rejected in benefit assessments due to concerns with their validity. Companies should pre-specify analyses of continuous data in statistical analysis plans to be considered for treatment benefit assessment in Germany.

Development of Patient and Caregiver Conceptual Models Investigating the Health-Related Quality of Life Impacts of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and usually fatal malignancy frequently linked to occupational asbestos exposures and associated with poor prognosis and considerable humanistic burden. The study aimed to develop conceptual models of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact on patients with and receiving treatment for MPM, and the burden on their caregivers. METHODS: This multi-country study (Australia and United Kingdom) adopted a qualitative methodology to conduct semi-structured, independent interviews with people with MPM (n = 26), current caregivers (n = 20), and caregivers of people who had recently died because of MPM (n = 4). Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling approach and interviews conducted via telephone between January 2021 and January 2022. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis and used to construct conceptual models. RESULTS: Patient analysis yielded four overarching themes: (1) debilitating burden of breathlessness and fatigue; (2) physical mesothelioma symptoms experienced by patients; (3) distress of MPM on the self and family; and (4) treatment is worth 'having a go' despite the potential impact on symptoms. Caregiver analysis yielded five core themes: (1) daily life limited by caregiving duties; (2) emotional well-being and the need for support; (3) the relational role shift to caregiver; (4) time spent providing care negatively impacts work and productivity; and (5) positive aspects and outcomes of caregiving. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the substantial daily and emotional HRQoL impact that MPM symptoms have on patients and caregivers. Both groups reduced work, productivity, and social and leisure activities. There was evidence of positive HRQoL impacts as a result of immunotherapy and radiotherapy, but less for chemotherapy. Caregiver impacts were intensified during the end-of-life period and persisted following patient death. Evident is a need for increased psychological support, information, and advice for caregivers, increased during the end-of-life period.

A Methodological Study to Compare Alternative Modes of Administration With Value EQ-5D Using Preference-Elicitation Techniques.

OBJECTIVES: Time trade-off (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference-elicitation techniques can be administered using face-to-face interviews (F2F), unassisted online (UO) surveys, or remote-assisted (RA) interviews. The objective of this study was to explore how the mode of administration affects the quality and reliability of preference-elicitation data. METHODS: EQ-5D-5L health states were valued using composite TTO (cTTO) and DCE approaches by the UK general population. Participants were allocated to 1 of 2 study groups. Group A completed both F2F and UO surveys (n = 271), and group B completed both RA and UO surveys (n = 223). The feasibility of survey completion and the reliability and face-validity of data collected were compared across all modes of administration. RESULTS: Fewer participants reported receiving sufficient guidance on the cTTO tasks during the UO survey compared with the 2 assisted modes. Participants across all modes typically reported receiving sufficient guidance on the DCE tasks. cTTO data were less reliable from the UO survey compared with both assisted modes, but there were no differences in DCE data reliability. cTTO data from all modes demonstrated face-validity; however, the UO survey produced higher utilities for moderate and severe health states than both assisted modes. Both F2F and RA modes provided comparably reliable data. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of DCE data is not affected by the mode of administration. Interviewer-assisted modes of administration (F2F or RA) yield more reliable cTTO data than unassisted surveys. Both F2F and RA surveys produced similar-quality data.

An eye on equity: faricimab-driven health equity improvements in diabetic macular oedema using a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK societal perspective.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in developed countries, with significant disease burden associated with socio-economic deprivation. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) allows evaluation of health equity impacts of interventions, estimation of how health outcomes and costs are distributed in the population, and assessments of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. We conducted an aggregate DCEA to determine the equity impact of faricimab. METHODS: Data on health outcomes and costs were derived from a cost-effectiveness model of faricimab compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept and off-label bevacizumab using a societal perspective in the base case and a healthcare payer perspective in scenario analysis. Health gains and health opportunity costs were distributed across socio-economic subgroups. Health and equity impacts, measured using the Atkinson inequality index, were assessed visually on an equity-efficiency impact plane and combined into a measure of societal welfare. RESULTS: At an opportunity cost threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), faricimab displayed an increase in net health benefits against all comparators and was found to improve equity. The equity impact increased the greater the concerns for reducing health inequalities over maximising population health. Using a healthcare payer perspective, faricimab was equity improving in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting therapies with fewer injections, such as faricimab, may reduce costs, improve health outcomes and increase health equity. Extended economic evaluation frameworks capturing additional value elements, such as DCEA, enable a more comprehensive valuation of interventions, which is of relevance to decision-makers, healthcare professionals and patients.

A time trade-off study to determine health-state utilities of transplant recipients with refractory cytomegalovirus infection with or without resistance.

BACKGROUND: Health-state utility values (HSUVs) for post-transplant refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (with or without resistance [R/R]) were determined using a time trade-off (TTO) survey completed by 1,020 members of the UK general public. METHODS: Existing literature and qualitative interviews with clinicians experienced in treating R/R CMV were used to develop initial draft vignettes of health states. The vignettes were refined to describe three clinical states of R/R CMV: clinically significant and symptomatic (CS-symptomatic CMV); clinically significant and asymptomatic (CS-asymptomatic CMV); and non-clinically significant (non-CS CMV). Each clinical state was valued independently and combined with three events of interest: graft-versus-host disease; kidney graft loss; and lung graft loss to generate twelve vignettes. The final vignettes were evaluated by a sample of the UK general public using an online TTO survey. Exclusion criteria were applied to the final data to ensure that responses included in the analysis met pre-defined quality control criteria. RESULTS: Overall, 738 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The sample was representative of the UK general population in terms of age and sex. Non-CS CMV had the highest mean HSUV (95% confidence interval) (0.815 [0.791, 0.839]), followed by CS-asymptomatic CMV (0.635 [0.602, 0.669]), and CS-symptomatic CMV (0.443 [0.404, 0.482]). CS-symptomatic CMV with lung graft loss had the lowest mean HSUV (0.289), with none of the health states considered on average worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: Post transplant R/R CMV has substantial impact on the health-related quality of life of patients. The utility values obtained in this study may be used to support economic evaluations of therapies for R/R CMV infection.

Health-related quality of life in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the UK: a cross-sectional study from pre- to post-infection.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time among individuals in the United Kingdom, adding to the evidence base that had focussed on severe COVID-19. METHODS: A bespoke online survey was administered to individuals who self-reported a positive COVID-19 test. An amended version of a validated generic HRQoL instrument (EQ-5D-5L) was used to measure HRQoL retrospectively at different timepoints over the course of an infection: pre-COVID-19, acute COVID-19, and long COVID. In addition, HRQoL post-COVID-19 was captured by the original EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. A mixed-effects model was used to estimate changes in HRQoL over time, adjusted for a range of variables correlated with HRQoL. RESULTS: The study recruited 406 participants: (i) 300 adults and 53 adolescents with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who had not been hospitalised for COVID-19 during acute COVID-19, and (ii) 53 adults who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 in the acute phase and who had been recruited for validation purposes. Data were collected between January and April 2022. Among participants included in the base-case analysis, EQ-5D-5L utility scores were lower during both acute COVID-19 (ß=-0.080, p = 0.001) and long COVID (ß=-0.072, p < 0.001) compared to pre COVID-19. In addition, EQ-5D-5L utility scores post-COVID-19 were found to be similar to the EQ-5D-5L utility scores before COVID-19, including for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID. Moreover, being hospitalised in the acute phase was associated with additional utility decrements during both acute COVID-19 (ß=-0.147, p = 0.026) and long (ß=-0.186, p < 0.001) COVID. CONCLUSION: Patients perceived their HRQoL to have varied significantly over the course of a mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection. However, HRQoL was found to return to pre-COVID-19 levels, even for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID.

Assessing the Content Validity of Preference-Based Measures in Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications. METHODS: Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods. RESULTS: Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items.

A Review of the Use of EQ-5D for Clinical Outcome Assessment in Health Technology Assessment, Regulatory Claims, and Published Literature.

The aim is to identify the extent to which EQ-5D is used as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint in a non-economic context in health technology assessment (HTA) decisions, regulatory labelling claims and published literature. Drug technology appraisals (TAs) published by HTA agencies in England, France, Germany and the USA between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Product labelling for drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2021 were also identified. A systematic literature review (SLR) was also performed. Documents reporting EQ-5D in the context of economic evaluation only were excluded. EQ-5D data were reported for COA in 195 of 1072 (18%) published TAs, with the majority reported for Germany (n = 138). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was reported most frequently, in 68% of all TAs, and accounted for 100% of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and 94% of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) TAs. In total, 320 drugs were approved or reviewed by the EMA and 735 by the FDA. Of these, 15 reported EQ-5D data from the EMA and 35 from the FDA; however, all EQ-5D data submitted to the FDA were reported in supporting documentation. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 32% of all documents. For the SLR, 329 of 4248 (8%) retrieved records were included. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 36% of studies. Clinical evaluation of recent drug approvals, based on regulatory, HTA and systematic literature reviews, demonstrated limited use of EQ-5D outside the context of economic evaluations. This may be due to the likelihood that the EQ-5D may lack sensitivity to detect improvement in conditions with small expected therapeutic benefit, or because the EQ-5D is not considered an adequate COA tool for clinical evaluation of treatment benefit. EQ-5D, as a COA, was more likely to be used in clinical evaluation of cancer drugs than drugs for treatment in any other disease category. HTA bodies were more likely to use the EQ-5D for COA, especially in Germany.

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Prospective Multi-center UK Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is unclear whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is impaired in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) without advanced fibrosis and how this compares with the general population. We aimed to assess HRQoL in patients with NAFLD in comparison to the general population and any associations of fibrosis severity and metabolic comorbidities with impairments in HRQoL. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 513 consecutive patients with NAFLD who completed the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaires (CLDQ). Demographic and clinical information, liver biopsy results, and/or liver stiffness (LS) by transient elastography were recorded. A general population sub-cohort of the Health Survey for England 2018 was used as a comparator (n = 5483), and a 1:1 propensity-score (PS) matching was performed, according to age, sex, body mass index, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESULTS: EQ-5D-5L utility was significantly lower in 466 PS-matched patients with NAFLD compared with PS-matched controls (0.77 ± 0.27 vs 0.84 ± 0.19; P < .001), even in those without advanced fibrosis (F ≤2 or LS <8kPa) (0.80 ± 0.24 vs 0.84 ± 0.19; P = .024). HRQoL measures (EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, CLDQ) did not differ between patients with NAFLD with and without advanced fibrosis. LS was independently associated with lower EQ-5D-5L in all patients with NAFLD but not in those without advanced fibrosis. In the latter, lower EQ-5D-5L was associated with female sex, T2DM, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NAFLD, even those without advanced fibrosis, have worse HRQoL compared with the general population. In patients with NAFLD without advanced fibrosis, HRQoL is independently associated with non-liver comorbidities but not LS. Multi-disciplinary management is therefore required in NAFLD, irrespective of fibrosis severity.

UK Valuation of EQ-5D-5L, a Generic Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life: A Study Protocol.

OBJECTIVES: A high-quality and widely accepted UK EQ-5D-5L value set is urgently required to enable the latest version of EQ-5D scored using recent UK public preferences to inform policy including health technology assessments submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This article outlines the study protocol for the generation of a new EQ-5D-5L UK value set. METHODS: Twelve hundred interviews will be undertaken using the composite time trade-off elicitation technique for 102 health states (86 from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol, plus 16 with best predictive performance in an extended design used in the Native American EQ-5D-5L valuation). The sample will be UK adults (age ≥18 years) proportionately representative across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, representative for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic group, with inclusion of participants with/without health problems. Participants will choose to be interviewed via videoconference (by Zoom) or in-person in a central venue. Data quality will be rigorously assessed. RESULTS: The value set will be generated using tobit random effects and heteroscedastic tobit models (with censoring at -1) using all data, excluding time trade-off values highlighted by participants as ones they would reconsider and data from interviewers failing protocol compliance. Quality and acceptance will be achieved by public involvement, regular Steering Group meetings, independent assessment of data quality at 4 time points, and final endorsement of data and analyses. CONCLUSION: This study will produce a UK value set for the EQ-5D-5L for use in prospective and retrospective data sets containing EQ-5D-5L data.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Illustration of an Aggregate Analysis and its Key Drivers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) facilitates quantitative assessments of how health effects and costs are distributed among population subgroups, and of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. Implementation of DCEA is currently explored by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Recent research conducted an aggregate DCEA on a selection of NICE appraisals; however, significant questions remain regarding the impact of the characteristics of the patient population (size, distribution by the equity measure of interest) and methodologic choices on DCEA outcomes. Cancer is the indication most appraised by NICE, and the relationship between lung cancer incidence and socioeconomic status is well established. We aimed to conduct an aggregate DCEA of two non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatments recommended by NICE, and identify key drivers of the analysis. METHODS: Subgroups were defined according to socioeconomic deprivation. Data on health benefits, costs, and target populations were extracted from two NICE appraisals (atezolizumab versus docetaxel [second-line treatment following chemotherapy to represent a broad NSCLC population] and alectinib versus crizotinib [targeted first-line treatment to represent a rarer mutation-positive NSCLC population]). Data on disease incidence were derived from national statistics. Distributions of population health and health opportunity costs were taken from the literature. A societal welfare analysis was conducted to assess potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted, varying a range of parameters. RESULTS: At an opportunity cost threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), alectinib improved both health and equity, thereby increasing societal welfare. Second-line atezolizumab involved a trade-off between improving health equity and maximising health; it improved societal welfare at an opportunity cost threshold of £50,000/QALY. Increasing the value of the opportunity cost threshold improved the equity impact. The equity impact and societal welfare impact were small, driven by the size of the patient population and per-patient net health benefit. Other key drivers were the inequality aversion parameters and the distribution of patients by socioeconomic group; skewing the distribution to the most (least) deprived quintile improved (reduced) equity gains. CONCLUSION: Using two illustrative examples and varying model parameters to simulate alternative decision problems, this study suggests that key drivers of an aggregate DCEA are the opportunity cost threshold, the characteristics of the patient population, and the level of inequality aversion. These drivers raise important questions in terms of the implications for decision making. Further research is warranted to examine the value of the opportunity cost threshold, capture the public's views on unfair differences in health, and estimate robust distributional weights incorporating the public's preferences. Finally, guidance from health technology assessment organisations, such as NICE, is needed regarding methods for DCEA construction and how they would interpret and incorporate those results in their decision making.

Estimation of Health State Utility Values in Fabry Disease Using Vignette Development and Valuation.

Background: Health state utilities are measures of health-related quality of life that reflect the value placed on improvements in patients' health status and are necessary for estimation of quality-adjusted life-years. Health state utility data on Fabry disease (FD) are limited. In this study we used vignette (scenario) construction and valuation to develop health state utilities. Objectives: The aim of this study was to use vignette construction and valuation to estimate health state utility values suitable for inclusion in economic models of FD treatments. Methods: Health state vignettes were developed from semistructured qualitative telephone interviews with patients with FD and informed by published literature and input from an expert. Each vignette was valued in an online survey by members of the United Kingdom (UK) general population using the composite time trade-off (TTO) method, which aims to determine the time the respondent would trade to live in full health compared with each impaired health state. Results: Eight adults (50% women) with FD from the UK were interviewed. They were recruited via various approaches, including patient organizations and social media. The interviewees' responses, evidence from published literature, and input from a clinical expert informed the development of 6 health state vignettes (pain, moderate clinically evident FD [CEFD], severe CEFD, end-stage renal disease [ESRD], stroke, and cardiovascular disease [CVD]) and 3 combined health states (severe CEFD + ESRD, severe CEFD + CVD, and severe CEFD + stroke). A vignette valuation survey was administered to 1222 participants from the UK general population who were members of an external surveying organization and agreed to participate in this study; 1175 surveys were successfully completed and included in the analysis. Responses to TTO questions were converted into utility values for each health state. Pain was the highest valued health state (0.465), and severe CEFD + ESRD was the lowest (0.033). Discussion: Overall, mean utility values declined as the severity of the vignettes increased, indicating that respondents were more willing to trade life-years to avoid a severe health state. Conclusions: Health state vignettes reflect the effects of FD on all major health-related quality-of-life domains and may help to support economic modeling for treatment of FD.

Mapping analysis to predict SF-6D utilities from health outcomes in people with focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Focal-onset seizures (FOS) are commonly experienced by people with epilepsy and have a significant impact on quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to develop a mapping algorithm to predict SF-6D values in adults with FOS for use in economic evaluations of a new treatment, cenobamate. METHODS: An online survey, including questions on disease history, SF-36, and an epilepsy-specific measure (QOLIE-31-P) was administered to people with FOS in the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and Spain. A range of regression models were fitted to SF-6D scores including direct and response mapping approaches. RESULTS: 361 individuals were included in the analysis. In the previous 28 days, the mean number of FOS experienced was 3, (range 0-43) and the mean longest period of consecutive days without experiencing a seizure was 14 days (range 1-28 days or more). Mean responses on all SF-36 dimensions were lower than general population norms. Mean SF-6D and QOLIE-31-P scores were 0.584 and 45.72, respectively. The best performing model was the ordinary least squares (OLS), with root mean squared error and mean absolute error values of 0.0977 and 0.0742, respectively. Explanatory variables which best predicted SF-6D included seizure frequency, severity, freedom, and age. CONCLUSION: People with uncontrolled FOS have poor QoL. The mapping algorithm enables the prediction of SF-6D values from clinical outcomes in people with FOS. It can be applied to outcome data from clinical trials to facilitate cost-utility analysis.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Technologies: Data Requirements and Challenges.

Governments and health technology assessment agencies are putting greater focus on and efforts in understanding and addressing health inequities. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to evaluate the costs and health gains of different interventions to inform the decision-making process on funding of new treatments. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is an extension of cost-effectiveness analysis that quantifies the equity impact of funding new treatments. Key challenges for the routine and consistent implementation of DCEA are the lack of clearly defined equity concerns from decision makers and endorsed measures to define equity subgroups and the availability of evidence that allows analysis of differences in data inputs associated with the equity characteristics of interest. In this article, we detail the data gaps and challenges to build robust DCEA analysis routinely in health technology assessment and suggest actions to overcome these hurdles.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® Test in Node-Negative Early Breast Cancer.

Background: The 21-gene assay (the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test) is a validated multigene assay which produces the Recurrence Score® result (RS) to inform decisions on the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), hormone receptor positive (HR+) early invasive breast cancer. A model-based economic evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay against the use of clinical risk tools alone based on the latest evidence from prospective studies. Methods: The proportion of patients assigned to chemotherapy conditional on their RS result was obtained from retrospective data from the Clalit registry. The probability of distant recurrence with endocrine and chemo-endocrine therapy conditional on RS result was obtained from TAILORx and NSABP B-20 trials. The cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay compared to using clinical risk tools alone was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon. Results: The 21-gene assay was more effective (0.17 more quality-adjusted life years) at a lower cost (-£519) over a lifetime compared to clinical risk alone. The model results were sensitive to assumptions around the magnitude of benefit of chemotherapy in the high RS result subgroup. Other assumptions underpinning the model, such as the proportion of patients assigned to chemotherapy in the low and mid-range RS result subgroups and long-term distant recurrence probabilities, had a smaller impact on the results. Conclusion: The analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay is sensitive to assumptions for chemotherapy sparing for patients with RS 0-25 whose outcomes with endocrine therapy are no worse compared to chemotherapy-assigned patients, and a chemotherapy benefit in the RS 26-100 group. Future studies need to incorporate a wider set of tumour profiling tests other than the 21-gene assay to allow a direct comparison of their cost-effectiveness.

Assessing the comparative feasibility, acceptability and equivalence of videoconference interviews and face-to-face interviews using the time trade-off technique.

This study examines the comparative equivalence, feasibility and acceptability of video and in-person interviews in generating time trade-off (TTO) values. Sample participants in England were recruited using a blended approach of different methods and sampled based on age, gender, ethnicity, and index of multiple deprivation. Participants were randomly allocated to be interviewed either via video or in-person. Participants completed TTO tasks for the same block of 10 EQ-5D-5L health states using the EQ-VTv2 software. Feasibility, acceptability and equivalence was assessed across mode using: sample representativeness; participant understanding, engagement and feedback; participant preferred mode of interview; data quality; mean utility and distribution of values for each health state; and regression analyses assessing the impact of mode whilst controlling for participant characteristics. The video and in-person samples had statistically significant differences in ethnicity and income but were otherwise broadly similar. Video interviews generated marginally lower quality data across some criteria. Participant understanding and feedback was positive and similar across modes. TTO values were similar across modes; whilst mean in-person TTO values were lower for the more severe states, mode was insignificant in most regression analyses. There was no clear preference of mode across all participants, though the characteristics of participants preferring to be interviewed in-person or by video differs. Video and in-person TTO interviews were feasible, acceptable and generated good-quality data, though video interviews had lower quality data across some criteria. Whilst TTO values differed across modes for the more severe states, mode does not appear to be the cause. The study found that the characteristics of people preferring each mode differed, and this should be taken into account in future valuation studies since sample representativeness for some characteristics, and therefore potentially TTO values, could be affected by the choice of mode.

An Analysis of 5-Level Version of EQ-5D Adjusting for Treatment Switching: The Case of Patients With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor T790M-Positive Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Osimertinib.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment switching from control to treatment after disease progression is common in oncology trials. Analyses of survival data typically adjust for this bias, but such adjustments are rarely performed in analyses of patient-reported outcomes. This analysis aimed to examine the impact of adjusting for treatment switching on estimated treatment effects on 5-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The AURA3 trial (NCT02151981) was a randomized controlled trial comparing osimertinib with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (standard care) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor mutant- and T790M-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer whose disease has progressed with previous epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Descriptive analyses were used to compare treatment arms. The primary analysis used a 2-stage least squares instrumental variable regression to estimate treatment effect adjusting for treatment crossover. Time to deterioration, defined from baseline to minimally important deterioration in EQ-5D-5L utility, was assessed using a rank preserving structural failure time model. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis of imputed data showed incremental QALYs for osimertinib of 0.23 at 60 weeks. Accounting for treatment switching increased this to 0.52 in the primary analysis and to 0.63 QALYs in sensitivity analysis at 150 weeks. Time to deterioration analysis showed longer health-related quality of life maintenance with osimertinib, of 12.76 weeks, although this was at the borderline of statistical significance (acceleration factor, ψ = -0.275; 95% confidence interval -0.50 to 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates methods to adjust for treatment switching in the analysis of EQ-5D-5L from clinical trials. Failure to account for crossover substantially underestimated the QALY gain for osimertinib.