Time-Specific Differences in Stated Preferences for Health in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Changes over time in health state values from a societal perspective may be an important reason to consider updating societal value sets for preference-based measures of health. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine whether stated health preferences are different between 2002 and 2017, controlling for demographic changes in the United States. METHODS: Data from 2002 and 2017 US EQ-5D-3L valuation studies were combined. The primary analysis compared valuations of better-than-dead (BTD) states only, as both studies used the same time trade-off (TTO) method for these states. For worse-than-dead (WTD) states, the 2017 study used the lead-time TTO and the 2002 study used the conventional TTO, which necessitated transformation. Regression models were fitted to BTD values to estimate time-specific differences, adjusting for respondent characteristics. Secondary analyses examined models that fitted WTD values (using linear and nonlinear transformations of the 2002 data) and all values. RESULTS: The adjusted BTD-only model showed mean values were higher for 2017 compared with 2002 (ßY2017=0.05, P<0.001). WTD-only models showed negative changes over time but that were dependent on the transformation method (linear ßY2017=-0.72; nonlinear ßY2017=-0.35; both P<0.001). Using all values, 2017 mean valuations were lower using a linear transformation (ßY2017=-0.11; P<0.001) but did not differ with the nonlinear transformation. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals in 2017 are generally less willing to trade quantity for quality of life compared with 2002. This study provides evidence of time-specific differences in a society's preferences, suggesting that the era in which values were elicited may be an important reason to consider updating societal value sets.

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived From the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaire. METHODS: We derived a descriptive system based on a subset of the 27-item FACT-G. Item selection was informed by psychometric analyses of existing FACT-G data (n = 6912) and by patient input (n = 82). We then conducted an online valuation survey, with participants recruited via an Australian general population online panel. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used, with attributes being the HRQL dimensions of the descriptive system and survival duration, and 16 choice-pairs per participant. Utility decrements were estimated with conditional logit and mixed logit modeling. RESULTS: Eight HRQL dimensions were included in the descriptive system: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, social support, sadness, and future health worry; each with 5 levels. Of 1737 panel members who accessed the valuation survey, 1644 (95%) completed 1 or more DCE choice-pairs and were included in analyses. Utility decrements were generally monotonic; within each dimension, poorer HRQL levels generally had larger utility decrements. The largest utility decrements were for the highest levels of pain (-0.40) and nausea (-0.28). The worst health state had a utility of -0.54, considerably worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: A descriptive system and preference-based scoring approach were developed for the FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the FACT-G. The Australian value set is the first of a series of country-specific value sets planned that can facilitate cost-utility analyses based on items from the FACT-G and related FACIT questionnaires containing FACT-G items.

Health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapies in real-world clinical practice settings.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted. RESULTS: 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI - 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of - 3.7 (95% CI - 6.8, - 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI - 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.

Development of an Instrument to Assess the Perceived Effectiveness of Academic Detailing.

INTRODUCTION: Academic detailing (AD) is an effective, evidence-based education outreach method of promoting clinician behavior change. Detailer feedback is important for program evaluation but is rarely systematically collected. The study's objective was to develop a measure capturing the detailer's perception of the effectiveness of an AD program. METHODS: A six-item measure with a five-level scale was initially developed from the literature review and expert panel consultation. Item constructs were usefulness, acceptability, feasibility, relevance, effectiveness of communication, and readiness to change. The measure was piloted, refined, and tested during an opioid-focused AD program that included two visits. The instrument structure was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis, measure reliability was assessed using item-item correlation (rho), corrected item-total correlation, Cronbach alpha (α), and item response theory. RESULTS: The initial six-item instrument demonstrated unidimensionality. The Cronbach α for the measure was 0.74 (visit 1) and 0.79 (visit 2); one item (relevance) was redundant (α = 0.73 and 0.79 when deleted) and therefore dropped. Items related to usefulness, acceptability, and readiness to change displayed high item-item correlation (rho ≥ 0.50) and contributed the most information and seemed to operate as a single scale (ie, "likelihood to change") based on item response theory analysis. Items related to feasibility and communication were slightly different constructs and should be reported separately. DISCUSSION: The five-item detailer assessment of visit effectiveness (the "DAVE") instrument provides a standardized approach to assess AD. Further study of its validity and broader use in other programs and educational outreach activities is encouraged.

Using linked electronic data to validate algorithms for health outcomes in administrative databases.

The validity of algorithms used to identify health outcomes in claims-based and administrative data is critical to the reliability of findings from observational studies. The traditional approach to algorithm validation, using medical charts, is expensive and time-consuming. An alternative method is to link the claims data to an external, electronic data source that contains information allowing confirmation of the event of interest. In this paper, we describe this external linkage validation method and delineate important considerations to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of validating health outcomes using this approach. This framework can help investigators decide whether to pursue an external linkage validation method for identifying health outcomes in administrative/claims data.