Utility Studies in Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Benjamin Ruban-Fell, Sari D Wright, Adib Abdullah, Amy Smith, Sheela Upadhyaya, Rebecca van Pelt, Annabel G M Griffiths
{"title":"Utility Studies in Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Benjamin Ruban-Fell, Sari D Wright, Adib Abdullah, Amy Smith, Sheela Upadhyaya, Rebecca van Pelt, Annabel G M Griffiths","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There are challenges associated with generating health-state utility values for rare diseases, leading to a potential lack of standardization in the methods used. This systematic literature review characterized the approaches used to generate utility data in rare diseases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches of MEDLINE/Embase, health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness databases were conducted, supplemented by grey literature searches. Due to the large volume of evidence identified, articles were prioritized for full-text review by applying a 2020 date limit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-seven articles (assessing 56 rare conditions) were included. Nineteen unique health-related quality-of-life tools were identified, 14 of which were generic. Indirect valuation methods were more common than direct (80 vs 43 instances). Among the indirect methods, the preference-based EQ-5D questionnaire was most reported (55 instances), followed by the non-preference-based short-form questionnaires (8 instances). Five disease-specific, non-preference-based questionnaires were reported. Mapping algorithms were used for preference-based and non-preference-based measures, typically mapped to EQ-5D, although challenges with mapping disease-specific tools to preference-based measures were noted. Vignettes were used in 29 articles; however, incomplete reporting on the development process limited the quality assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generic, preference-based measures were commonly used to generate utility data in rare diseases among the identified studies, facilitating comparison but potentially limiting sensitivity of results. Development of appropriate and valid disease-specific measures and more transparent/consistent reporting of vignette development, would help ensure that all aspects of health-related quality-of-life impacted by rare diseases are suitably captured, to allow reliable demonstration of the value of treatments to support future reimbursement.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: There are challenges associated with generating health-state utility values for rare diseases, leading to a potential lack of standardization in the methods used. This systematic literature review characterized the approaches used to generate utility data in rare diseases.

Methods: Searches of MEDLINE/Embase, health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness databases were conducted, supplemented by grey literature searches. Due to the large volume of evidence identified, articles were prioritized for full-text review by applying a 2020 date limit.

Results: Ninety-seven articles (assessing 56 rare conditions) were included. Nineteen unique health-related quality-of-life tools were identified, 14 of which were generic. Indirect valuation methods were more common than direct (80 vs 43 instances). Among the indirect methods, the preference-based EQ-5D questionnaire was most reported (55 instances), followed by the non-preference-based short-form questionnaires (8 instances). Five disease-specific, non-preference-based questionnaires were reported. Mapping algorithms were used for preference-based and non-preference-based measures, typically mapped to EQ-5D, although challenges with mapping disease-specific tools to preference-based measures were noted. Vignettes were used in 29 articles; however, incomplete reporting on the development process limited the quality assessment.

Conclusions: Generic, preference-based measures were commonly used to generate utility data in rare diseases among the identified studies, facilitating comparison but potentially limiting sensitivity of results. Development of appropriate and valid disease-specific measures and more transparent/consistent reporting of vignette development, would help ensure that all aspects of health-related quality-of-life impacted by rare diseases are suitably captured, to allow reliable demonstration of the value of treatments to support future reimbursement.

罕见病的效用研究:系统文献综述。
目标:在为罕见疾病产生健康状况效用值方面存在挑战,导致所使用的方法可能缺乏标准化。1,2本系统文献综述(SLR)描述了用于生成罕见病效用数据的方法。方法:检索MEDLINE/Embase、卫生技术评价和成本-效果数据库,并辅以灰色文献检索。由于发现的证据量很大,文章优先进行全文审查,并采用2020年的日期限制。结果:纳入97篇文献(评估56例罕见病例)。确定了19种独特的健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)工具,其中14种是通用的。间接估价法比直接估价法更常见(80例对43例)。间接方法中,基于偏好的EQ-5D问卷报告最多(55例),其次是非基于偏好的短格式问卷(8例)。报告了5份疾病特异性、非偏好性问卷。测绘算法用于基于偏好和非偏好的措施,通常映射到EQ-5D,尽管注意到将特定疾病工具映射到基于偏好的措施方面存在挑战。29篇文章采用小插图;然而,开发过程的不完整报告限制了质量评估。结论:在所确定的研究中,通用的、基于偏好的测量方法通常用于生成罕见病的效用数据,便于比较,但可能限制结果的敏感性。制定适当和有效的针对特定疾病的措施,以及更加透明/一致地报告小插曲的发展情况,将有助于确保适当地了解受罕见疾病影响的HRQoL的所有方面,从而能够可靠地证明治疗的价值,以支持今后的报销。
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
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信