Value in Health最新文献

{"title":"Genotype-Specific Tricyclic Antidepressant Dosing in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.","authors":"Sophie E Ter Hark, Wietske Kievit, Gerjon Hannink, Cornelis F Vos, Jan Spijker, Annemarie van der Meij, Anne J Grotenhuis, Raluca Mihaescu, Rogier Donders, Rob E Aarnoutse, Arnt F A Schellekens, Marieke J H Coenen, Joost G E Janzing","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.018","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.018","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preemptive CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotype-informed tricyclic antidepressant dosing from a societal and a healthcare perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with data from the Pharmacogenetics for Individualized Tricyclic Antidepressant dosing study. This multicenter randomized controlled trial (n = 111) compared pharmacogenetic-informed treatment (PIT) with treatment as usual. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs were measured at 13 and 26 weeks. Prices were based on or indexed to 2022 tariffs. Single imputation nested in the bootstrap percentile method (using 5000 bootstrap replications) was performed to address missing data and to estimate uncertainty around cost-effectiveness outcomes. Incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) was calculated based on a willingness to pay (WTP) of €50 000/QALY.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our data showed a marginal difference of -0.0125 QALYs (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.0404 to 0.0149, week 13) and 0.0012 QALYs (95% CI -0.0491 to 0.0574, week 26) for PIT versus treatment as usual. From the healthcare perspective, a cost saving of €148 (week 13) and €521 (26 week) was found for PIT. The societal perspective showed increased costs of €1300 (week 13) and €1704 (26 weeks) for PIT. The mean iNMB from a healthcare perspective was positive at 26 weeks, the other iNMBs (13 weeks and societal perspective) were negative.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We observed marginal differences of QALYs in both the healthcare and societal perspective with cost savings from the healthcare perspective and additional cost from the societal perspective. These mixed results warrant more long-term observational studies to determine whether preemptive genotyping in tricyclic antidepressant dosing will be cost-effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144795650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Toward a Common Ground for Defining Digital Health Interventions, Mapping Digital Health Frameworks to PICOTS-ComTeC: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.","authors":"Annette Champion, Anita Burrell, Anke-Peggy Holtorf, Rossella Di Bidino, Jagadeswara Rao Earla, Artem T Boltyenkov, Masami Tabata-Kelly, Carl Asche, Brian Seal, Zsombor Zrubka","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.022","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.022","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Digital health interventions (DHIs) should be defined in a comparable, structured manner to facilitate research informing clinical and financial decisions. The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timing, Setting, Communication, Technology, Context (PICOTS-ComTeC) framework was developed to define patient-facing DHIs for health economics and outcomes research. Our objective was to compare PICOTS-ComTeC with established DHI frameworks and guidelines to determine the degree of overlap, additional value of PICOTS-ComTeC, and how the frameworks might be used together.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An expert group selected comparator frameworks. Reviewer pairs extracted information and mapped DHI definitions to 9 domains and 32 subcategories of PICOTS-ComTeC. A third reviewer checked for consistency across frameworks and missing data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A diverse group of 16 frameworks (9 international, regarding DHI classification, quality, labeling, and reporting; 6 national DHI health technology assessment and payer; 1 international health economic reporting) were compared with PICOTS-ComTeC. Across all frameworks, 81% (116/144) of PICOTS-ComTeC domains matched (range 44%-100%). The mean number of domain matches for a framework was 7.3. Comparator frameworks matched 48% (247/512) of PICOTS-ComTeC subcategories (range 16%-81%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The degree to which PICOTS-ComTeC is congruous with items in diverse DHI frameworks suggests that PICOTS-ComTeC represents a common ground for defining patient-facing DHIs for research, reporting, and assessment purposes, thereby improving patient care by accelerating adoption of effective DHIs. PICOTS-ComTeC contains items not uniformly present in comparator frameworks. PICOTS-ComTeC can be used to define patient-facing DHIs by adding missing PICOTS-ComTeC items to comparator frameworks or using information from comparator frameworks to describe PICOTS-ComTeC items.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144800399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"EQ-5D-5L in multiple sclerosis: Estimated utility values, minimal (clinically) important changes, and direct and indirect influences over time.","authors":"Carolyn A Young, Roger J Mills, Alan Tennant","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.019","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In multiple sclerosis (MS), studies reporting mean EQ-5D-5L health utility values ranged from 0.31-0.82 and a 2024 systematic review found no published anchor-based estimates for EQ-5D-5L Minimal Important Change (MIC). We derived age-sex specific utility reference values and MIC of the EQ-5D-5L in a large UK sample with MS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Trajectories of Outcomes in Neurological Conditions-MS study calculated EQ-5D-5L age-sex and disability-subtype specific utility estimates. Multiple regression identified possible predictors of health status for inclusion into a Structural Equation Model (SEM). Calculation of MIC used an anchor-based method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 5509 participants, female (73.7%), aged 17-87, mean EQ-5D-5L utility was 0.682 (95% CI: 0.675-0.688; range -0.28-1.0). There was an age gradient and difference between male and female utilities across each age group (age: F 34.3 (df 11, 497): p<0.001; sex: t 5.794; (df 5507): p<0.001). In SEM, higher self-efficacy improved EQ-5D-5L while cognitive problems, progressive disease, fatigue, bladder problems and stigma decreased EQ-5D-5L. In the longitudinal sample comprising 2066 pwMS, mean utility value at follow-up was 0.673 (95% CI: 0.662-0.683), MIC 0.146 (95% CI: 0.137-0.154). MIC varied significantly by MS subtype and for those reporting a relapse within the past year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Health utility values for MS are consistently lower than those found in the English population, and are influenced by factors amenable to clinical intervention. Anchor-based MIC varied by subtype and relapse history, showing that when assessing the significance of changing health status from the perspective of those with MS, a uniform MIC should not be employed.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144795649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"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","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 8","pages":"Page 1302"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141443396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Psychometric Performance of the EQ Health and Wellbeing in Caregivers of Persons Living With Dementia","authors":"Cate Bailey PhD ,&nbsp;Tessa Peasgood PhD ,&nbsp;Bernhard Michalowsky PhD ,&nbsp;Lidia Engel PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2168","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2168","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a generic instrument recently developed for use in economic evaluations across public health and social care, including impacts on caregivers. Providing informal care to a person living with dementia can significantly affect the health and well-being of carers. However, it is unclear to what extent the EQ-HWB can capture such impacts. We aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the EQ-HWB compared with other available instruments in caregivers of persons living with dementia.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>An online survey included demographics, informal care-related questions, and quality-of-life measures suitable for caregivers (C-DEMQOL and CarerQol) and the 25-item EQ-HWB. We used the UK pilot value set for the index scores for the EQ-HWB-S (9-item short form). The psychometric properties of the EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S were assessed in terms of acceptability (missing data), response distribution, known-groups validity analysis using <em>t</em> tests and one-way ANOVAs (Cohen’s <em>d</em> and Eta squared for effect size), convergent validity (Spearman correlations), and an exploration of dimensionality using exploratory factor analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In known-group validity analysis, the EQ-HWB instruments performed similarly to the C-DEMQOL in terms of effect sizes across a range of variables and slightly better than the CarerQol on some variables. At the item level, 13 of the 25 items could discriminate respondents by caregiving time and 23 of 25 items by caregivers’ general self-reported health. Most hypothesized correlations in the convergent validity analysis were found to be above 0.3.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our results suggest that the EQ-HWB instruments performed well in this population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 8","pages":"Pages 1221-1230"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144017385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exemption System for Economic Evaluation Data Submission for Pharmaceuticals in South Korea: Achievements and Challenges","authors":"So-jung Hwang PhD ,&nbsp;Namhee Kim MPH ,&nbsp;Eunsol Seo MPH ,&nbsp;Yeji Kim MPH ,&nbsp;Tae-Jin Lee PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2163","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2163","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Since the implementation of the positive listing system in South Korea in 2007, new and improved drugs have been reimbursed based on economic evaluation. Nevertheless, concerns have arisen about reduced accessibility to some drugs. To address this, an Exemption system for Economic Evaluation data submission for pharmaceuticals (EEE) was introduced in 2015 to improve access to drugs with uncertainties in evidence generation. This study aims to assess the institutional and budgetary impact of EEE.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A descriptive analysis was conducted of the status of EEE-listed drugs. The institutional impact was assessed by evaluating changes in listing rates, time to listing, and cost-effectiveness assessment schemes. The budgetary impact was analyzed by comparing EEE-listed drugs with those listed under other schemes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The EEE system has positively influenced accessibility, as seen in increased listing rates. By September 2023, 33 ingredients had been listed under the EEE, including 23 for cancer and 6 for rare diseases, with 20 available controlled clinical data. The implementation of the EEE has significantly weakened the role of economic evaluations, especially for cancer and rare disease treatments. The cost per person for EEE-listed drugs was 2.13 to 8.52 times higher, and the number of patients treated with EEE follow-on drugs was substantially larger than those under other schemes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Given the negative impact of the EEE on deriving appropriate drug values through economic evaluations, there is an imminent need for improved cost management. This can be achieved by implementing a reliable cost-effectiveness evaluation framework that addresses various uncertainties.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 8","pages":"Pages 1185-1194"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144000043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Comparative Study of Health and Well-Being Measures in Ireland Using EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and its Short Version, EQ-5D-5L, and ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A)","authors":"Irina Kinchin PhD ,&nbsp;Lidia Engel PhD ,&nbsp;Fanni Rencz PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2160","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2160","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a new experimental measure of health and well-being, having been validated in an increasing number of countries and languages. This study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the EQ-HWB and its short version (EQ-HWB-S) in Ireland and compare them with the EQ-5D-5L and ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from a 2023 Irish general population survey (<em>n =</em> 1220). The survey included the EQ-HWB, EQ-5D-5L, ICECAP-A, and socioeconomic and health-related questions. EQ-HWB-S responses were derived from the EQ-HWB. The UK or Irish value sets were used for each measure to compute index values. Ceiling effects, convergent, divergent validity, and known-group validity were assessed and exploratory factor analysis was conducted.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Mean index values were 0.755, 0.760 to 0.830, and 0.807 for the EQ-HWB-S, EQ-5D-5L, and ICECAP-A, respectively. Ceiling effects were 3%, 7%, 23%, and 15% for EQ-HWB, EQ-HWB-S, EQ-5D-5L, and ICECAP-A. EQ-HWB-S index values correlated strongly with EQ-5D-5L (r = 0.740-0.759) and ICECAP-A (r = 0.604) index values. All measures demonstrated good known-group validity for health-related variables, with EQ-5D-5L performing best overall. Factor analysis identified 5 factors: psychosocial health, pain and discomfort, sensory and physical functioning, capability well-being, and positive psychological states. Feeling settled and secure was the only ICECAP-A item that loaded onto the same factor (psychosocial health) as any of the EQ-HWB items.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the measurement performance of EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S with ICECAP-A. The EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S showed good psychometric performance in an Irish population sample. Limited overlap was observed between EQ-HWB and ICECAP-A well-being concepts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 8","pages":"Pages 1268-1279"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144038876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Growing Evidence Base on Condition-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Long COVID","authors":"Adam B. Smith PhD ,&nbsp;Darren Greenwood PhD ,&nbsp;Manoj Sivan MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.011","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.12.011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 8","pages":"Pages 1300-1301"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144017652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Costs and Outcomes After Primary and Revision Hip Replacements by Implant Bearing Materials: Analysis of 550 760 linked Patient Records from English Routinely Collected Databases","authors":"Patricia Navvuga MSc ,&nbsp;Erik Lenguerrand PhD ,&nbsp;Rita Patel PhD ,&nbsp;Jonathan M. French BMBS ,&nbsp;Ashley W. Blom PhD ,&nbsp;Michael R. Whitehouse PhD ,&nbsp;Elsa M.R. Marques PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2170","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.04.2170","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We investigated 10-year revision risks, hospital admission costs, and quality of life for patients in the year after elective primary and revision total hip replacement (THR), overall and by implant bearing materials and fixation combination.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We analyzed linked National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, and Patient Reported Outcome Measure databases for adults undergoing elective primary THR in England (2009-2018). Implants were classified by bearing material combinations (cobalt chrome and stainless steel, delta or alumina ceramics, and highly or nonhighly crosslinked polyethylene [HCLPE]) and fixation (cemented, uncemented, and hybrid). We estimated hazard ratios with flexible parametric survival models, and generalized linear models for costs and quality of life. Missing quality-of-life data were imputed using multiple imputation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We analyzed 550 760 elective primary (mean age = 69, SD = 10.7) and 9590 subsequent revision THRs. On average, a primary THR costed, £10 365 (95% CI £10 350-£10 381); quality of life after primary was 0.786 (95% CI 0.785- 0.786), and 10-year revision risk was 2.4% (95% CI 2.08%-2.78%). First and second revisions costed, on average, £20 387 and £24 290, with mean quality-of-life scores of 0.609 and 0.502, respectively. Compared with cemented cobalt chrome and stainless steel on HCLPE, cemented delta-on-HCLPE, uncemented delta-on-HCLPE, and hybrid delta-on-HCLPE, alumina-on-HCLPE, delta-on-delta and alumina-on-alumina were associated with lower 1-year costs, improved quality of life, and lower 10-year revision risks.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Revision surgery costs double than that of an elective primary with drastically lower quality of life. Bearing materials and fixation were associated with varying 1-year costs, quality-of-life scores and revision risks. Although observational data may be affected by unmeasured confounding, our findings could help guide procurement decisions given changing trends in implant choice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 8","pages":"Pages 1176-1184"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144151952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Health-State Utility Values for Infectious Diseases With Pandemic Potential and Associated Vaccine Adverse Reactions","authors":"Taito Kitano MD, DrPH ,&nbsp;Daniel A. Salmon PhD ,&nbsp;Matthew Z. Dudley PhD ,&nbsp;Ian J. Saldanha PhD ,&nbsp;David A. Thompson DNSc ,&nbsp;Lilly Engineer DrPH","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The COVID-19 pandemic and its vaccine deployment have illustrated the importance of estimating the disease burden of the pandemic and vaccine adverse reactions in a comparable fashion. The objective was to evaluate health-state utility value (HSUV) scores for infectious diseases with pandemic potential and associated vaccine adverse reactions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We included studies from which we could extract a single HSUV associated with priority infectious diseases with pandemic potential or associated vaccine adverse reactions. We assessed risk of bias using the criteria recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 39 studies, and data synthesis was conducted for COVID-19, influenza, and dengue for infectious diseases and myocarditis and narcolepsy for vaccine adverse reactions. Response rates varied (2%-98%), whereas follow-up rates ranged from 68% to 100%. Twenty-four studies did not report how they handled missing data. Compared with control groups, COVID-19 (acute phase) and influenza (acute phase) had reduced EQ-5D scores: −0.11 (95% CI −0.14, −0.07) in COVID-19 and −0.50 (95% CI −0.60, −0.41) in influenza. For associated vaccine adverse reactions, the mean EQ-5D score for myocarditis and PedsQL score for narcolepsy were 0.88 (95% CI 0.76, 1.00) and 64.0 (95% CI 59.4, 68.7), respectively. No apparent asymmetry was observed in funnel plots.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study provided HSUV scores for some infectious diseases with pandemic potential and associated vaccine adverse reactions. These results can be used as HSUV indicators for future health technology and cost-effectiveness assessments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 8","pages":"Pages 1280-1287"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143573762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}