scholarly journals Development of a pharmacoeconomic registry: an example using hormonal contraceptives

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annesha White ◽  
Meenakshi Srinivasan ◽  
La Marcus Wingate ◽  
Samuel Peasah ◽  
Marc Fleming

Abstract Background Disease-specific registries, documenting costs and probabilities from pharmacoeconomic studies along with health state utility values from quality-of-life studies could serve as a resource to guide researchers in evaluating the published literature and in the conduct of future economic evaluations for their own research. Registries cataloging economic evaluations currently exist, however they are restricted by the type of economic evaluations they include. There is a need for intervention-specific registries, that document all types of complete and partial economic evaluations and auxiliary information such as quality of life studies. The objective of this study is to describe the development of a pharmacoeconomic registry and provide best practices using an example of hormonal contraceptives. Methods An expert panel consisting of researchers with expertise in pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research was convened and the clinical focus of the registry was finalized after extensive discussion. A list of key continuous, categorical and descriptive variables was developed to capture all relevant data with each variable defined in a data dictionary. A web-based data collection tool was designed to capture and store the resulting metadata. A keyword based search strategy was developed to retrieve the published sources of literature. Finally, articles were screened for relevancy and data was extracted to populate the registry. Expert opinions were taken from the panel at each stage to arrive at consensus and ensure validity of the registry. Results The registry focused on economic evaluation literature of hormonal contraceptives used for contraception. The registry consisted of 65 articles comprising of 22 cost-effectiveness analyses, 9 cost-utility analyses, 7 cost-benefit analyses, 1 cost-minimization, 14 cost analyses, 10 cost of illness studies and 2 quality of life studies. The best practices followed in the development of the registry were summarized as recommendations. The completed registry, data dictionary and associated data files can be accessed in the supplementary information files. Conclusion This registry is a comprehensive database of economic evaluations, including costs, clinical probabilities and health-state utility estimates. The collated data captured from published information in this registry can be used to identify trends in the literature, conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis and develop novel pharmacoeconomic models.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. e0008761
Author(s):  
Carolina Rosadas ◽  
Tatiane Assone ◽  
Marina Yamashita ◽  
Adine Adonis ◽  
Marzia Puccioni-Sohler ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Sabina Sanghera ◽  
Axel Walther ◽  
Tim J. Peters ◽  
Joanna Coast

Abstract Background It can be challenging to measure quality of life to calculate quality-adjusted life-years in recurrent fluctuating health states, as quality of life can constantly change. It is not clear how patients who experience fluctuations complete measures and how assessment timing and recall influence responses. Objective We aimed to understand how patients with fluctuating health complete widely recommended and commonly used measures (EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-12) and the extent to which the recall period (‘health today’, ‘past week’ and ‘past 4 weeks’) and timing of assessment influence the way that patients complete these questionnaires. Methods Twenty-four adult patients undergoing chemotherapy for urological, gynaecological or bowel cancers in the UK participated in think-aloud interviews, while completing the measures, completed a pictorial task illustrating how quality of life changed during the chemotherapy cycle and took part in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using constant comparison. Results Patients were consistent in describing their quality of life as changing considerably throughout a chemotherapy cycle. The shorter recall period of ‘health today’ does not adequately represent patients’ quality of life because of fluctuations, patients remarked they could give a different answer depending on the timing of assessment, and many struggled to combine the “ups and downs” to answer measures with longer recall (‘past week’ and ‘past 4 weeks’). Across all measures, patients attempted to provide averages, adopt the peak-end rule or focus on the best part of their experience. Patients commonly used more than one approach when completing a given questionnaire as well as across questionnaires. Conclusions Patients who experience recurrent fluctuations in health are unable to provide meaningful responses about their quality of life when completing quality-of-life measures due to the recall period and timing of assessment. The use of such responses to calculate health state values in economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions in fluctuating conditions must be questioned.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Schneider

In economic evaluations of health technologies, health outcomes are commonly measured in terms of QALYs. QALYs are the product of time and health-related quality of life. Health-related quality of life, in turn, is determined by a social tariff, which is supposed to reflect the public’s preference over health states. This paper argues that, because of the tariff’s role in the societal decision making process, it should not be understood as merely a statistical model, but as a major instrument of democratic participation. I outline what implications this might have for both the method used to aggregate individual preferences, and the set of individuals whose preferences should count. Alternative tariff specifications are explored, and future research directions are proposed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 103-103
Author(s):  
Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte ◽  
Jasper Ubels ◽  
Diego Andres Hernandez Carreno ◽  
Michael Schlander

Introduction:Health state utilities measured by the generic multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) differ. Empirical evidence suggests that some MAUIs are more sensitive than others in reflecting the quality of life (QoL) of patients in particular disease areas. Additionally, in order to estimate utilities based on cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments (CSQoLs), a number of mapping functions have emerged. Although it is common practice to apply a CSQoL instead of a MAUI in clinical trials, CSQoL cannot be used to estimate utility values for economic evaluations. Mappings based on MAUIs that are not sensitive to changes in cancer patients’ QoL may result in misleading approximations of utilities that could affect allocation of resources. The study objective is to explore the validity and sensitivity of the major MAUIs to variation in the QoL measured by cancer-specific instruments. We aimed to investigate (i) the sensitivity of the general MAUIs scores to changes in the CSQoL, and (ii) whether particular dimensions of the general instrument are more sensitive.Methods:A two stage systematic literature review is conducted. First, an update of the review done by McTaggart-Cowan et al. (2013) on the mapping methods used to determine utilities from cancer-specific instrument. Second, an analysis of studies that measure the relationship between CSQoLs and general MAUIs.Results:The literature suggests that differences exist between MAUIs in their capacity to capture the QoL dimensions of the CSQoLs. Additionally, the main challenge to build an appropriate mapping function for deriving utilities values from CSQoL is the definition of an appropriate methodology that (i) responds to the distribution of the selected sample and (ii) can successfully be validated in additional samples.Conclusions:In the context of health technology assessment and cost effectiveness analysis, it is crucial to carefully select and report the CSQoL and MAUI involved in the estimation of the additional benefits. Policy makers need to be awarded of the sensitivity of the instruments to changes in QoL in relation to the CSQoL dimensions QoL.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. S139-S140
Author(s):  
Matthew McGirt ◽  
Scott Parker ◽  
Owoicho Adogwa ◽  
David Shau ◽  
Stephen Mendenhall ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Leborato Guerra ◽  
Neilane Bertoni Dos Reis ◽  
Flávia De Miranda Corrêa ◽  
Myrian Machado Fernandes ◽  
Ricardo Ribeiro Alves Fernandes ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document