罕见病的效用研究:系统文献综述。

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":"罕见病的效用研究:系统文献综述。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
Utility Studies in Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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