An updated systematic review of Health State Utility Values for osteoporosis related conditions
- 896 Downloads
An important component of cost effectiveness models in the field of osteoporosis is the set of Health State Utility Values (HSUVs) used for key fracture outcomes. This paper presents a review of HSUVs for key osteoporotic states (hip, wrist, shoulder, clinical, and morphometric vertebral fractures, established osteoporosis, and interaction of several fractures). It provides an update to the systematic review conducted by Brazier et al. (Osteoporos Int 13(10):768–776, 2002).
Materials and methods
A systematic search was undertaken of the main literature databases for HSUVs for established osteoporosis, vertebral, hip, wrist, and shoulder fractures were identified. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed in terms of the patient population, the method of describing health (if not obtained directly from patients), the method of valuing health states and the source of values.
Estimates of Health State Utility Values were found across the osteoporosis conditions from 27 studies. A wide range of empirical estimates were found, partly due to differences in valuation technique (VAS, SG, TTO), descriptive system and differences in respondents (population or patient), the perspective of the task (own health or a scenario), sample size, and study quality.
The paper provides a set of multipliers representing the loss in HSUVs for use as a “reference case” in cost-effectiveness models.
KeywordsHealth State Utility Values Osteoporosis Quality adjusted life years Utilities
This study review was funded by Lilly. John Brazier is funded by the UK Medical Research Council.
- 2.Sculpher M, Torgerson D, Goeree R, O’Brien B (1999) A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Discussion Paper 169 York: The University of York Centre for Health Economics .Google Scholar
- 3.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A (2007) Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Valuation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew A, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N. (2006) Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cooper C, Jakob F, Chinn C, Martin-Mola E, Fardeloone P, Adami S, Thalassinos NC, Melo-Gomes J, Torgerson D, Gibson A, Marin F (2009) Fracture incidence and changes in quality of life in women with inadequate clinical outcome from osteoporosis therapy: the Observational Study of Severe Osteoporosis (OSSO). Osteoporosis International (in press)Google Scholar
- 10.Czoski-Murray C, De-Nigris E, Brazier J, Walters S (2007) A prospective controlled study of the costs and health related quality of life following hip fracture. School of Health and Related Research, University of SheffieldGoogle Scholar
- 11.Zethraeus N, Borgström F, Johnell O, Kanis J, Önnby K, Jönsson B. (2002) Costs and Quality of life Associated with Osteoporosis related Fractures—Results from a Swedish Survey SSE/EFI. 2002. Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, No 512. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
- 12.Rajzbaum G, Jakob F, Karras D, Ljunggren O, Lems W, Langdahl B, Fahrleitner-Pammer A, Walsh J, Gibson A, Tynan A, Marin F (2008) Characterization of patients in the European Forsteo Observational Study (EFOS): postmenopausal women entering teriparatide treatment in a community setting. Curr Med Res Opin 24(2):377–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Ariza-Ariza R, Hernández-Cruz B, Navarro Sarabia F (2004) Calidad de vida de los pacientes con osteoporosis. Validación de la versión en español de un instrumento específico: el OPTQoL. Rev Esp Reumatol 31(2):74–81Google Scholar
- 15.Cockerill W, Lunt M, Silman AJ, Cooper C, Lips P, Bhalla AK, Cannata JB, Eastell R, Felsenberg D, Gennari C, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Kiss C, Masaryk P, Naves M, Poor G, Raspe H, Reid DM, Reeve J, Stepan J, Todd C, Woolf AD, O’Neill TW (2004) Health-related quality of life and radiographic vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:113–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Brazier JE, Kohler B, Walters S. (2000) A prospective study of health related quality of life impact of hip fracture. Sheffield: ScHARR. University of Sheffield. .Ref Type: Unpublished WorkGoogle Scholar
- 24.Jakob F, Marin F, Martin-Mola E, Torgerson D, Fardellone P, Adami S, Thalassinos NC, Sykes D, Melo-Gomes J, Chinn C, Nicholson T, Cooper C (2006) Characterization of patients with an inadequate clinical outcome from osteoporosis therapy: the Observational Study of Severe Osteoporosis (OSSO). Qjm 99(8):531–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. (1999) UK population norms for EQ-5D. 172. University of York. CHE discussion paper. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
- 26.Prescott-Clarke P, Primatesta P. (1998) Health Survey for England 1996. London, HMSO. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
- 33.Sawka AM, Thabane L, Papaioannou A, Gafni A, Ioannidis G, Papadimitropoulos EA, Hopman WM, Cranney A, Hanley DA, Pickard L, Adachi JD, CaMos I (2005) Health-related quality of life measurements in elderly Canadians with osteoporosis compared to other chronic medical conditions: a population-based study from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 16(12):1836–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Adachi JD, Loannidis G, Berger C, Joseph L, Papaioannou A, Pickard L, Papadimitropoulos EA, Hopman W, Poliquin S, Prior JC, Hanley DA, Olszynski WP, Anastassiades T, Brown JP, Murray T, Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A, Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) Research Group (2001) The influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across Canada. Osteoporos Int 12(11):903–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, Harper KD, Xie S, on behalf of the Health-Related Quality of Life Subgroup of the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation Study (2001) The relationship of health-related quality of life to prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Results from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation Study. Arthritis and Rheumatism 44(11):2611–2619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Salkeld G, Cameron ID, Cumming RG, Easter S, Seymour J, Kurrle SE, Quine S (2003) Quality of life related to fear of falling and hip fracture in older women: a time trade-off study. Bri Med J 320:241–246 Ref Type: AbstractGoogle Scholar
- 46.Czoski-Murray C, De-Nigris E, Brazier J, Walters S (2007) A prospective controlled study of the costs and health related quality of life following hip fracture. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield. 1–12, Ref Type: Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar
- 48.Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Pickard L, Berger C, Prior JC, Joseph L, Hanley DA, Olszynski WP, Murray TM, Anastassiades T, Hopman W, Brown JP, Kirkland S, Joyce C, Papaioannou A, Poliquin S, Tenenhouse A, Papadimitropoulos EA (2003) The association between osteoporotic fractures and health-related quality of life as measured by the Health Utilities Index in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 14(11):895–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Kaukonen J-P, Karaharju EO, Porras M, Luthje P, Jakobsson A (1998) Functional recovery after fracture of the distal forearm. Ann Chir Gynaecol 77:27–31Google Scholar
- 51.Atkins RM, Duckworth T, Kanis JA (1990) features of algodystrophy after Colles’s fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72-B(1):105–110Google Scholar
- 52.Merlino LA, Bagchi I, Taylor TN, Utrie P, Chrischilles E, Sumner W, Mudano A, Saag KG (2001) Arthritis Patients Preferences for Fractures and Other Glucocorticoid-Associated Adverse Effects among Rheumatoid. Med Decis Mak 21:122–132Google Scholar
- 56.Golicki D, Sliwka A, Fijewski G, Latek M (2006) Quality of life according to EQ-5D after osteoporotic hip fracture in Poland. Value Health 9(6):A382–A383Google Scholar
- 57.Briggs AH, Gray AM (1999) Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Technol Assess 3:No.2Google Scholar