Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 275–284 | Cite as

Preferences and utilities for the symptoms of moderate to severe allergic asthma

  • Andrew LloydEmail author
  • Scott Doyle
  • Sarah Dewilde
  • Florian Turk
Original paper

Abstract

Introduction

Patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma have persistent poorly controlled asthma despite inhaled or systemic corticosteroid therapy. New therapies are becoming more widely available to treat such patients, but their value needs to be formally assessed in an economic evaluation. Within a publicly funded health care system such an analysis should reflect societal preferences when measuring treatment benefits. The aim of this study was to elicit societal preferences for the symptom burden associated with moderate to severe allergic asthma.

Method

Existing daily symptom diary data from a clinical trial were used to develop health state descriptions for evaluation in a standard gamble interview. Five health states were produced that reflected five distinct levels of control ranging from ‘complete control of asthma’ to ‘worsening of asthma’, as defined by another outcome measure. The symptom diary data were also used as attributes in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate willingness to pay for improvements in symptoms. Members of the general public (n = 101) completed the interview.

Results

Thirteen participants failed the consistency checks and were excluded from the analysis. Societal utility ratings for the health states ranged from 0.71 (worsening of asthma) to 0.78 (complete control of asthma). The participants were also willing to pay £160 a month for the avoidance of all symptoms.

Conclusions

The range of utility values (0.71–0.78) demonstrates the severity of moderate to severe allergic asthma. However the spread of scores between complete control of asthma and worsening of asthma was lower than was expected. The community sample placed only a moderate value on the avoidance of all asthma symptoms in the DCE survey. The results suggest that the community sample may not have fully understood the benefits of control over asthma symptoms and the limitations such symptoms can impose on everyday life.

Keywords

Asthma Valuation Willingness to pay (WTP) Utility Preference 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Bernadette Khoshaba who helped to develop the health states and interviewed some study participants. The study was funded by Novartis AG.

References

  1. 1.
    Bennett, K., Torrance, G.: Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker, B. (eds.) HRQL and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, pp. 253–266 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Busse, W., Corren, J., Quentin Lanier, B., McAlary, M., Fowler-Taylor, A., Della Cioppa, van As A., Gupta, N.: Omalizumab, anti-IgE recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of severe allergic asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 108, 184–190 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conner-Spady, B.L., et al.: A longitudinal prospective study of health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients following high-dose chemotherapy with autologous blood stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 36(3), 251–259 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finn, A., Gross, G., van Bavel, J., Lee, T., Windom, H., Everhard, F., Fowler-Taylor, A., Liu, J., Gupta, N.: Omalizumab improves asthma-related quality of life in patients with severe allergic asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 111, 278–284 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G.W., Barr, R.D., Horsman, J.: Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. McMaster University CHEPA working paper series (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA): Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. NIH Publication 02-3659 issued January 1995 (updated 2002, 2003; accessed 26 Oct 2004). Available at: http://www.ginasthma.com
  7. 7.
    Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, MC.: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greene, W.H., Greene, L.K., Seaks, T.G.: Estimating the functional form of the independent variables in probit models. Appl. Econ. 27, 193–196 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humbert, M., Beasley, R., Ayres, J., Slavin, R., Hebert, J., Bousquet, J., Beech, K-M., Ramos, S., Canonica, G.W., Hedgecock, S., Fox, H., Blogg, M., Surrey, K.: Benefits of omalizumab as add-on therapy in patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite best available therapy (GINA 2002 step 4 treatment): INNOVATE. Asthma 10, 1398 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kind, P., Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Williams, A.: Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Br. Med. J. 316, 736–741 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lloyd, A.J., McIntosh, E., Rabe, K., Williams, A.E.: Patient preferences for asthma therapy: a discrete choice experiment. Prim. Care Respir. J. (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd, A.J., Price, D., Brown, R.: The impact of asthma exacerbations on health-related quality of life in moderate to severe asthma patients in the UK. Prim. Care Respir. J. 16, 22–27 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lloyd, A., Turk, F., Leighton, T., Canonica, G.W.: Psychometric evaluation of global evaluation of treatment effectiveness: a tool to assess patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. J. Med. Econ. 10(3), 285–296 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Swait, J.: Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of Random Utility Theory preference eliciation methods. In: Gustafson, A., Hermann, A., Huber, F. (eds.) Conjoint Measurement: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin, pp. 305–344 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manski, C.F.: The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 8(229), 254 (1977)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall. G.D. Jr, Sorkness, C.A.: IgE-blocking therapy for difficult-to-treat asthma: a brief review. Manag. Care 13(3), 45–50 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McFadden, E.R. Jr: Acute severe asthma. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 168(7), 740–759 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norum, J., et al.: Treatment costs in Hodgkin’s disease: a cost-utility analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 32A(9), 1510–1517 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Office of National Statistics, National Statistics website “Population of the United Kingdom: by ethnic group, April 2001”. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget_print.asp?ID=764
  20. 20.
    Osman, L.M., McKenzie, L., Cairns, J., Friend, J.A.R., Godden, D.J., Legge, J.S., Douglas, J.G.: Patient weighting of importance of asthma symptoms. Thorax 56, 138–142 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roe, B., Boyle, K.J., Teisl, M.F.: Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 31, 145–159 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Solèr, M., Matz, J., Townley, R., Buhl, R., O’Brien J., Fox, H., Thirlwell, J., Gupta, N.,Della Cioppa, G.: The anti-IgE antibody omalizumab reduces exacerbations and steroid requirement in allergic asthmatics. Eur. Respir. J. 18, 254–261 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Torrance, G.W.: Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ. 5(1), 1–30 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torrance, G.W.: Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods. Clin. Econ. Eval. Perinat. Dev. Med. 20, 37–45 (1982)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torrance, G.W.: Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J. Chronic Dis. 40(6), 593–600 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Lloyd
    • 1
    Email author
  • Scott Doyle
    • 2
  • Sarah Dewilde
    • 2
  • Florian Turk
    • 3
  1. 1.Oxford Outcomes LtdOxfordUK
  2. 2.United BioSource CorporationLondonUK
  3. 3.Novartis AGBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations