The use of health utility in cost-utility analysis: A systematic review in substance use disorders

IF 4.4 2区医学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE

International Journal of Drug Policy Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104570

Anh Dam Tran , Xin Zhan , Annaëlle Vinzent , Lorelie Flood , Tian Bai , Erinn Gallagher , Gregory S. Zaric

{"title":"The use of health utility in cost-utility analysis: A systematic review in substance use disorders","authors":"Anh Dam Tran , Xin Zhan , Annaëlle Vinzent , Lorelie Flood , Tian Bai , Erinn Gallagher , Gregory S. Zaric","doi":"10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aim</h3><div>We aim to identify within-trial and modelled Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) in substance use disorders (SUD) and review the applicability assessment associated with health utility used in modelled CUA.</div></div><div><h3>Study design and methods</h3><div>We searched Medline, Embase, EconLit and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) databases. A global systematic literature search was undertaken to determine the CUA of SUD interventions. Key characteristics of the studies and use of health utility were described. The applicability assessment associated with health utility used in modelled CUA was reviewed using The Health Utility Application Tool (HAT).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The final review retrieved 49 CUA (14 within-trial and 35 modelled CUA). Three major health utility measurements were used - standard gamble, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D. EQ-5D-5L was mainly used in within-trial CUA, whereas standard gamble, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were equally cited in modelled CUA and within-trial CUA. Twenty-nine articles using modelled CUA citing health utilities from published literature were assessed. Only half and one-third of CUA studies described the type of quality-of-life measure and value sets used in health utility studies, respectively. Only two-thirds showed the authors addressed questions about the similarities in clinical conditions, and health state description between health utility studies and economic evaluation studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Justifications for chosen health utilities in modelled CUA studies were mostly absent in SUD. We suggested health economists use the HAT to make judgements when assessing health utility from published estimates. The use of this tool will increase the reliability of economic evaluation carried out to assist government and policymakers in making informed decisions around health topics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48364,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Drug Policy","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 104570"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Drug Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002548","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim

We aim to identify within-trial and modelled Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) in substance use disorders (SUD) and review the applicability assessment associated with health utility used in modelled CUA.

Study design and methods

We searched Medline, Embase, EconLit and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) databases. A global systematic literature search was undertaken to determine the CUA of SUD interventions. Key characteristics of the studies and use of health utility were described. The applicability assessment associated with health utility used in modelled CUA was reviewed using The Health Utility Application Tool (HAT).

Results

The final review retrieved 49 CUA (14 within-trial and 35 modelled CUA). Three major health utility measurements were used - standard gamble, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D. EQ-5D-5L was mainly used in within-trial CUA, whereas standard gamble, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were equally cited in modelled CUA and within-trial CUA. Twenty-nine articles using modelled CUA citing health utilities from published literature were assessed. Only half and one-third of CUA studies described the type of quality-of-life measure and value sets used in health utility studies, respectively. Only two-thirds showed the authors addressed questions about the similarities in clinical conditions, and health state description between health utility studies and economic evaluation studies.

Conclusion

Justifications for chosen health utilities in modelled CUA studies were mostly absent in SUD. We suggested health economists use the HAT to make judgements when assessing health utility from published estimates. The use of this tool will increase the reliability of economic evaluation carried out to assist government and policymakers in making informed decisions around health topics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在成本效用分析中使用健康效用：对药物使用障碍的系统回顾。

背景和目的：我们旨在确定药物使用障碍（SUD）的试验内和模型成本效用分析（CUA），并审查模型成本效用分析中使用的与健康效用相关的适用性评估：我们检索了 Medline、Embase、EconLit 和药品福利咨询委员会 (PBAC) 数据库。为确定 SUD 干预措施的 CUA，我们进行了全球系统性文献检索。对研究的主要特点和健康效用的使用进行了描述。使用 "健康效用应用工具"（HAT）对建模 CUA 中使用的健康效用进行了适用性评估：最终审查检索到 49 项 CUA（14 项试验内 CUA 和 35 项模拟 CUA）。使用了三种主要的健康效用测量方法--标准赌注、EQ-5D-5L 和 SF-6D。EQ-5D-5L 主要用于试验内 CUA，而标准赌注、EQ-5D-5L 和 SF-6D 在模拟 CUA 和试验内 CUA 中的引用率相同。评估了 29 篇使用模拟 CUA 的文章，这些文章引用了已发表文献中的健康效用。只有一半和三分之一的 CUA 研究分别描述了生活质量测量的类型和健康效用研究中使用的价值集。只有三分之二的研究表明，作者解决了健康效用研究和经济评估研究在临床条件和健康状态描述方面的相似性问题：结论：在 SUD 中，模拟 CUA 研究中选择健康效用的理由大多不充分。我们建议卫生经济学家在根据已公布的估计值评估健康效用时使用 HAT 做出判断。该工具的使用将提高经济评估的可靠性，从而帮助政府和政策制定者围绕健康主题做出明智决策。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Drug Policy SUBSTANCE ABUSE-

CiteScore

7.80

自引率

11.40%

发文量

307

审稿时长

62 days

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Drug Policy provides a forum for the dissemination of current research, reviews, debate, and critical analysis on drug use and drug policy in a global context. It seeks to publish material on the social, political, legal, and health contexts of psychoactive substance use, both licit and illicit. The journal is particularly concerned to explore the effects of drug policy and practice on drug-using behaviour and its health and social consequences. It is the policy of the journal to represent a wide range of material on drug-related matters from around the world.