Advertisement

Elicitation of Health-Related Utility in Perianal Fistula in Crohn’s Disease

  • Louise LongworthEmail author
  • Donna Fountain
  • Jeshika Singh
  • Ismail Azzabi
  • Glynn Owen
  • Ulf Lundstam
  • Shaji Sebastian
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background and Objective

Perianal fistulae are a common complication of Crohn’s disease (CD) and pose a substantial burden on quality of life. Data capturing health-related utility associated with perianal fistulae in CD are scarce. The current study aims to value health states related to different stages of the disease to quantitatively evaluate the impact of complex perianal fistulae on CD patients’ quality of life.

Methods

Eight health state descriptions associated with complex perianal fistulae in CD were developed following qualitative research with patients and validation by clinicians. Following pre-testing, a survey was administered online in two samples of UK respondents: the general population and patients with CD. A choice-based valuation technique, the time trade-off (TTO), was used for direct utility measurement. CD patients also valued their current health state using the TTO. Exclusion criteria for respondents displaying logical inconsistencies were applied.

Results

Usable responses were received from 835 respondents, reflective of the UK population in age and sex, in the general population survey and 162 CD patients in the patient survey. Non-remission states were valued much lower than the remission state by both samples, ranging from 0.20 for proctectomy with a negative outcome to 0.66 for chronic symptomatic fistulae with mild symptoms. Patients currently experiencing fistulae reported lower values for current health than those without fistulae.

Conclusion

Low utility values were assigned to the non-remission health states for perianal fistulae in CD by the general public and patients with CD. This demonstrates the high humanistic burden of inadequately managed perianal fistula in CD.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the participants of the study. The authors also thank Persefoni Ioannou and Nicola Illingworth from PHMR for editorial assistance.

Author contributions

LL conceived the study, participated in its design and coordination, and drafted the manuscript; DF coordinated the study, participated in the design and interpretation of the data; IA participated in study design, interpretation of the data and helped to draft the study; JS performed the statistical analysis, contributed to the interpretation of the data and drafted the manuscript; GO, SS and UL contributed to the interpretation of the data and drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research and preparation of the manuscript was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Conflict of interest

Ismail Azzabi and Glynn Owen were employees at Takeda when this study was conducted. Shaji Sebastian has received grants and consulting fees from Takeda. Ulf Lundstarm has received consultancy fees from Takeda. Louise Longworth, Donna Fountain and Jeshika Singh declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

Data subject to third-party restriction. The data that support the findings of this study are available from Takeda Pharmaceuticals but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Supplementary material

40271_2018_352_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)
40271_2018_352_MOESM2_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bell SJ, Williams AB, Wiesel P, Wilkinson K, Cohen RC, Kamm MA. The clinical course of fistulating Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17(9):1145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sciaudone G, Di Stazio C, Limongelli P, Guadagni I, Pellino G, Riegler G, et al. Treatment of complex perianal fistulas in Crohn disease: infliximab, surgery or combined approach. Can J Surg. 2010;53(5):299–304.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vollebregt PF, van Bodegraven AA, Markus-de Kwaadsteniet TML, van der Horst D, Felt-Bersma RJF. Impacts of perianal disease and faecal incontinence on quality of life and employment in 1092 patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47(9):1253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marzo M, Felice C, Pugliese D, Andrisani G, Mocci G, Armuzzi A, et al. Management of perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease: an up-to-date review. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(5):1394–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Zoeten EF, Pasternak BA, Mattei P, Kramer RE, Kader HA. Diagnosis and treatment of perianal Crohn disease: NASPGHAN clinical report and consensus statement. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013;57(3):401–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falconi M, Pederzoli P. The relevance of gastrointestinal fistulae in clinical practice: a review. Gut. 2001;49(Suppl 4):iv2–10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maconi G, Gridavilla D, Vigano C, Sciurti R, Asthana AK, Furfaro F, et al. Perianal disease is associated with psychiatric co-morbidity in Crohn’s disease in remission. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29(10):1285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahadev S, Young JM, Selby W, Solomon MJ. Quality of life in perianal Crohn’s disease: what do patients consider important? Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(5):579–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grouin A, Brochard C, Siproudhis L, Leveque J, Bretagne J-F, Poulain P, et al. Perianal Crohn’s disease results in fewer pregnancies but is not exacerbated by vaginal delivery. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(12):1021–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/Foreword. Accessed 12 Dec 2018.
  13. 13.
    Tosh JC, Longworth LJ, George E. Utility values in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals. Value Health. 2011;14(1):102–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16(1):202–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arseneau KO, Cohn SM, Cominelli F, Connors AF Jr. Cost-utility of initial medical management for Crohn’s disease perianal fistulae. Gastroenterology. 2001;120(7):1640–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buxton MJ, Lacey LA, Feagan BG, Niecko T, Miller DW, Townsend RJ. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohn’s Disease Activity Index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health. 2007;10(3):214–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goni JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Devlin NJ, Krabbe PFM. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Janssen BMF, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Office for National Statistics. 2011 census data. 2011. https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census/2011censusdata.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malinowski KP, Kawalec P. Health utility of patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(4):441–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grucela A, Gurland B, Kiran RP. Functional outcomes and quality of life after anorectal surgery. Am Surg. 2012;78(9):952–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability? Health Econ. 2010;19(2):125–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PHMR LimitedLondonUK
  2. 2.Takeda Pharmaceuticals International GmbHZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Takeda UK LtdHigh WycombeUK
  4. 4.Gothenburg UniversityGöteborgSweden
  5. 5.Hull and East Yorkshire HospitalHullUK

Personalised recommendations