Assessment of health state utilities associated with adult and pediatric acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD).

INTRODUCTION: Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) type B is a rare genetic disorder leading to enlargement of the spleen and liver, pulmonary dysfunction, and other symptoms. Cost-utility analyses are often conducted to quantify the value of new treatments, and these analyses require health state utilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with varying levels of severity of adult and pediatric ASMD type B. METHODS: Seven adult and seven child health state vignettes describing ASMD were developed based on published literature, clinical trial results, and interviews with clinicians, patients with ASMD, and parents of children with ASMD. The health states were valued in time trade-off interviews with adult general population respondents in the UK. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 202 participants (50.0% female; mean age = 41.3 years). The health state representing ASMD without impairment had the highest mean utility for both the adult and child health states (0.92/0.94), and severe ASMD had the lowest mean utility (0.33/0.45). Every child health state had a significantly greater utility than the corresponding adult health state. Differences between adult/child paired states ranged from 0.02 to 0.13. Subgroup analyses explored the impact of parenting status on valuation of child health states. DISCUSSION: Greater severity of ASMD was associated with lower mean utility. Results have implications for valuation of pediatric health states. The resulting utilities may be useful in cost-utility modeling estimating the value of treatment for ASMD.

Vignette-Based Utilities: Usefulness, Limitations, and Methodological Recommendations.

Health technology assessment agencies often prefer that utilities used to calculate quality-adjusted life years in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are derived using standardized methods, such as generic preference-based measures completed by patients in clinical trials. However, there are situations when no standardized approach is feasible or appropriate for a specific medical condition or treatment that must be represented in a CUA. When this occurs, vignette-based methods are often used to estimate utilities. A vignette (sometimes called a "scenario," "health state description," "health state vignette," or "health state") is a description of a health state that is valued in a preference elicitation task to obtain a utility estimate. This method is sometimes the only feasible way to estimate utilities representing a concept that is important for a CUA. Consequently, vignette-based studies continue to be conducted and published, with the resulting utilities used in economic models to inform decision making about healthcare resource allocation. Despite the potential impact of vignette-based utilities on medical decision making, there is no published guidance or review of this methodology. This article provides recommendations for researchers, health technology assessment reviewers, and policymakers who may be deciding whether to use vignette-based methods, designing a vignette study, using vignette-based utilities in a CUA, or evaluating a CUA that includes vignette-based utilities. Recommendations are provided on: (A) when to use vignette-based utilities, (B) methods for developing vignettes, (C) valuing vignettes, (D) use of vignette-based utilities in models, and (E) limitations of vignette methods.

Health state utilities associated with treatment for transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia.

OBJECTIVES: Transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia (TDT) is a genetic disease that affects production of red blood cells. Conventional treatment involves regular red blood cell transfusions and iron chelation, which has a substantial impact on quality of life. While potentially curative, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is associated with risk of complications, including graft-versus-host disease (GvHD). Gene addition therapy, a novel treatment approach, involves autologous transplantation of the patient's own genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with treatment approaches for TDT. METHODS: General population respondents in England valued eight health state vignettes (developed with clinician, patient, and parent input) in time trade-off interviews. RESULTS: A total of 207 participants completed interviews (49.8% female; mean age = 43.2 years). Mean (SD) utilities for the pre-transplant health states were 0.73 (0.25) with oral chelation and 0.63 (0.32) with subcutaneous chelation. Mean utilities for the transplant year were 0.62 (0.35) for gene addition therapy, 0.47 (0.39) for allo-HSCT, and 0.39 (0.39) for allo-HSCT with acute GvHD. Post-transplant utilities were 0.93 (0.15) for transfusion independent, 0.75 (0.25) for 60% transfusion reduction, and 0.51 (0.38) for chronic GvHD. Acute and chronic GvHD were associated with significant disutility (acute = - 0.09, p < 0.0001; chronic = - 0.42, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Utilities followed expected patterns, with logical differences between treatment options for TDT and substantially greater utility for transfusion independence than for ongoing treatment involving transfusion and chelation. These utilities may be useful in cost-utility models estimating the value of treatments for TDT.

Patient preferences and health state utilities associated with dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy.

Aims: Several glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are available as weekly injections for treatment of type 2 diabetes. These medications vary in their injection devices, and these differences could impact quality-of-life and patient preference. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with injection devices for two weekly GLP-1 therapies. Materials and methods: Participants with type 2 diabetes in Italy (Milan, Rome) valued three health state vignettes in time trade-off interviews. The health states had identical descriptions of type 2 diabetes, but differed in description of the treatment process: (1) oral treatment regimen, (2) oral plus weekly dulaglutide injection, and (3) oral plus weekly semaglutide injection. Results: A total of 216 participants completed interviews (57.9% male; mean age = 60.5). Almost all patients (99.5%) preferred the oral health state over either injection health state. Comparing between the two injections, 88.4% preferred the dulaglutide health state, while 11.6% preferred the semaglutide state. Mean (SD) utilities were 0.907 (0.076) for oral, 0.894 (0.085) for dulaglutide, and 0.887 (0.087) for semaglutide. The mean (SD) utility difference between the injection device health states was 0.007 (0.019). Limitations: Although the health states were designed to match the injection device instructions for use as closely as possible, vignette-based methods are inherently limited because results are based on perceptions of the health states rather than actual patient experience with the devices. Conclusions: Results provide insight into patient preferences associated with injection devices for weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. The majority of patients preferred the dulaglutide device over the semaglutide device, and for some patients, this difference had an impact on utility valuations. Patient preferences for injection devices could be an important factor to consider when selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Health State Utilities Associated with Glucose Monitoring Devices.

BACKGROUND: Glucose monitoring is important for patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Conventional glucose monitoring requires a blood sample, typically obtained by pricking the finger. A new sensor-based system called "flash glucose monitoring" monitors glucose levels with a sensor worn on the arm, without requiring blood samples. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the utility difference between these two glucose monitoring approaches for use in cost-utility models. METHODS: In time trade-off interviews, general population participants in the United Kingdom (London and Edinburgh) valued health states that were drafted and refined on the basis of literature, clinician input, and a pilot study. The health states had identical descriptions of diabetes and insulin treatment, differing only in glucose monitoring approach. RESULTS: A total of 209 participants completed the interviews (51.7% women; mean age = 42.1 years). Mean utilities were 0.851 ± 0.140 for conventional monitoring and 0.882 ± 0.121 for flash monitoring (significant difference between the mean utilities; t = 8.3; P < 0.0001). Of the 209 participants, 78 (37.3%) had a higher utility for flash monitoring, 2 (1.0%) had a higher utility for conventional monitoring, and 129 (61.7%) had the same utility for both health states. CONCLUSIONS: The flash glucose monitoring system was associated with a significantly greater utility than the conventional monitoring system. This difference may be useful in cost-utility models comparing the value of glucose monitoring devices for patients with diabetes. This study adds to the literature on treatment process utilities, suggesting that time trade-off methods may be used to quantify preferences among medical devices.

Preference for pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes.

PURPOSE: Pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes, such as dose frequency and route of administration, can have an impact on quality of life, treatment adherence, and disease outcomes. The aim of this literature review was to examine studies on preferences for pharmaceutical treatment process attributes, focusing on research in diabetes, oncology, osteoporosis, and autoimmune disorders. METHODS: The literature search focused on identifying studies reporting preferences for attributes of the pharmaceutical treatment process. Studies were required to use formal quantitative preference assessment methods, such as utility valuation, conjoint analysis, or contingent valuation. Searches were conducted using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Economic Evaluation Database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (January 1993-October 2013). RESULTS: A total of 42 studies met inclusion criteria: 19 diabetes, nine oncology, five osteoporosis, and nine autoimmune. Across these conditions, treatments associated with shorter treatment duration, less frequent administration, greater flexibility, and less invasive routes of administration were preferred over more burdensome or complex treatments. While efficacy and safety often had greater relative importance than treatment process, treatment process also had a quantifiable impact on preference. In some instances, particularly in diabetes and autoimmune disorders, treatment process attributes had greater relative importance than some or all efficacy and safety attributes. Some studies suggested that relative importance of treatment process depends on disease (eg, acute vs chronic) and patient (eg, injection experience) characteristics. CONCLUSION: Despite heterogeneity in study methods and design, some general patterns of preference clearly emerged. Overall, the results of this review suggest that treatment process has a quantifiable impact on preference and willingness to pay for treatment, even in many situations where safety and efficacy were the primary concerns. Patient preferences for treatment process attributes can inform drug development decisions to better meet the needs of patients and deliver improved outcomes.

The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the time horizon of time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) utility assessment influences utility scores and discrimination between health states. METHODS: In two phases, UK general population participants rated three osteoarthritis health states in TTO and SG procedures with two time horizons: (1) 10-year and (2) a time horizon derived from self-reported additional life expectancy (ALE). The two time horizons were compared in terms of mean utilities and discrimination among health states. RESULTS: In Phase 1, the 10-year tasks were completed by 80 participants, 35 of whom also completed utility assessment with the ALE. In Phase 2, all 101 participants completed procedures with both time horizons. Utility scores tended to be lower with the ALE than the 10-year, a difference that was statistically significant for two health states with SG in Phase 1 (P < 0.05), two health states with TTO in Phase 2 (P < 0.01), and one health state with SG in Phase 2 (P < 0.001). In Phase 1, rates of discrimination between mild and moderate osteoarthritis health states were significantly higher with the ALE than the 10-year (TTO: P = 0.03; SG: P = 0.001). This pattern of discrimination was similar in Phase 2. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that the time horizon could influence utility scores and discrimination among health states. When designing utility evaluations, researchers should carefully consider the time horizon so that the value of health states is accurately represented in cost-utility models.

Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility models are frequently used to compare treatments intended to prevent or delay the onset of cardiovascular events. Most published utilities represent post-event health states without incorporating the disutility of the event or reporting the time between the event and utility assessment. Therefore, this study estimated health state utilities representing cardiovascular conditions while distinguishing between acute impact including the cardiovascular event and the chronic post-event impact. METHODS: Health states were drafted and refined based on literature review, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. Three cardiovascular conditions were described: stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and heart failure. One-year acute health states represented the event and its immediate impact, and post-event health states represented chronic impact. UK general population respondents valued the health states in time trade-off tasks with time horizons of one year for acute states and ten years for chronic states. RESULTS: A total of 200 participants completed interviews (55% female; mean age = 46.6 y). Among acute health states, stroke had the lowest utility (0.33), followed by heart failure (0.60) and ACS (0.67). Utility scores for chronic health states followed the same pattern: stroke (0.52), heart failure (0.57), and ACS (0.82). For stroke and ACS, acute utilities were significantly lower than chronic post-event utilities (difference = 0.20 and 0.15, respectively; both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Results add to previously published utilities for cardiovascular events by distinguishing between chronic post-event health states and acute health states that include the event and its immediate impact. Findings suggest that acute versus chronic impact should be considered when selecting scores for use in cost-utility models. Thus, the current utilities provide a unique option that may be used to represent the acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular conditions in economic models comparing treatments that may delay or prevent the onset of cardiovascular events.