Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 85–92 | Cite as

Health State Utilities for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia: A Time Trade-off Study

  • Namita Joshi
  • Marja Hensen
  • Sachin Patel
  • Weiwei Xu
  • Kathy Lasch
  • Elly Stolk
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objectives

Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is an aggressive haematological cancer associated with significant humanistic impact. The current study assessed how the general public in the United Kingdom (UK) values AML health states.

Methods

The composite time trade-off (cTTO) methodology was employed to elicit health state utilities in AML. Pertinent AML literature related to symptom and quality-of-life impact including physical, functional and emotional well-being, as well as the safety profile of AML treatments, were taken into consideration for drafting health state descriptions. Ten health states included in the study were newly diagnosed AML, induction, consolidation, maintenance, long-term follow-up, relapsed/refractory, stem-cell transplant (SCT) procedure, SCT recovery, SCT long-term follow-up with complications and SCT long-term follow-up without complications. The descriptions were validated by haematologists and nurse specialists for clinical accuracy and completeness. A total of 210 individuals from the general UK population participated in the cTTO interviews. Descriptive statistics were computed for health state utility values.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 44.0 years (standard deviation [SD] 14.9, range 18–81) and comprised 129 (61.4%) female participants. The utility values ranged from 0.94 (SD 0.13) for SCT long-term follow-up without complications to − 0.21 (SD 0.62) for the SCT procedure.

Conclusions

The study provides health utilities for a range of AML health states, with the SCT procedure health state being valued worse than death. The utilities obtained in this study can be employed as inputs in cost-effectiveness analyses of AML therapies.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Krystallia Pantiri, Lisette Nientker, and Nick Durno for conducting the interviews. We also thank Amrita Ostawal and Jarjieh Fang for reviewing the manuscript, and Jarjieh Fang for providing editorial support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Namita Joshi, Marja Hensen and Kathy Lasch are employees of Pharmerit International, which received funding by Novartis Global to conduct the study. Weiwei Xu was an employee of Pharmerit International at the time of the study, which received funding by Novartis Global to conduct the study. Sachin Patel is employed by Novartis UK. Elly Stolk is employed by The EuroQol Research Foundation and served as the methodology advisor on this study.

Conflict of interest

Namita Joshi, Marja Hensen, Weiwei Xu and Kathy Lasch are employees of Pharmerit International, a consultancy which received funding from Novartis Global to conduct the study. Sachin Patel is an employee of Novartis UK. Elly Stolk received a consulting fee from Pharmerit International for serving as a methodology advisor on this study.

Supplementary material

40273_2018_704_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    O’Donnell MR, Abboud CN, Altman J, Appelbaum FR, Arber DA, Attar E, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines acute myeloid leukemia. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10:984–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Union for International Cancer Control. Acute myelogenous leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia. 2014. http://www.who.int/selection_medicines/committees/expert/20/applications/AML_APL.pdf.  Accessed 14 Aug 2018.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    O’Donnell MR, Abboud CN, Altman J, Appelbaum FR, Coutre SE, Damon LE, et al. Acute myeloid leukemia. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011;9:280–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stalfelt AM. Quality of life of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. Leuk Res. 1994;18:257–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leunis A, Redekop WK, Uyl-de Groot CA, Löwenberg B. Impaired health-related quality of life in acute myeloid leukemia survivors: a single-center study. Eur J Haematol. 2014;93:198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panju AH, Danesh A, Minden MD, Kelvin DJ, Alibhai SMH. Associations between quality of life, fatigue, and cytokine levels in patients aged 50+ with acute myeloid leukemia. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17:539–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gotay CC, Kawamoto CT, Bottomley A, Efficace F. The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oliva EN, Nobile F, Alimena G, Ronco F, Specchia G, Impera S, et al. Quality of life in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: patients may be more accurate than physicians. Haematologica. 2011;96:696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deschler B, Ihorst G, Platzbecker U, Germing U, Marz E, de Figuerido M, et al. Parameters detected by geriatric and quality of life assessment in 195 older patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia are highly predictive for outcome. Haematologica. 2013;98:208–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:278–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care. 1992;30:MS274–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zeidan AM, Mahmoud D, Kucmin-Bemelmans IT, Alleman CJM, Hensen M, Skikne B, et al. Economic burden associated with acute myeloid leukemia treatment. Expert Rev Hematol. 2016;9:79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurosawa S, Yamaguchi T, Miyawaki S, Uchida N, Kanamori H, Usuki K, et al. A Markov decision analysis of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation versus chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first remission. Blood. 2011;117:2113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uyl-de Groot CA, Löwenberg B, Vellenga E, Suciu S, Willemze R, Rutten FF. Cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life assessment of GM-CSF as an adjunct to intensive remission induction chemotherapy in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Br J Haematol. 1998;100:629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szende A, Schaefer C, Goss TF, Heptinstall K, Knight R, Lübbert M, et al. Valuation of transfusion-free living in MDS: results of health utility interviews with patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-81.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grulke N, Albani C, Bailer H. Quality of life in patients before and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core Questionnaire QLQ-C30. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47:473–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brazier JE, Rowen D. NICE DSU technical support document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:993–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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;17:445–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJV, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017;20(3):466–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand Hendrikson K, Van Hout B, Ranos Goñi J. Overview, update and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol (Submitted).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leak Bryant A, Lee Walton A, Shaw-Kokot Julia, Mayer D, Reeve BB, et al. Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life in adults with acute leukemia: a systematic review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2015;42:E91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Messerer D, Engel J, Hasford J, Schaich M, Ehninger G, Sauerland C, et al. Impact of different post-remission strategies on quality of life in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2008;93:826–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE pathway: myeloid leukaemia. 2017. https://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/blood-and-bone-marrow-cancers/myeloid-leukaemia. Accessed 1 Jan 2018.
  27. 27.
    Aristides M, Barlev A, Barber B, Gijsen M, Quinn C. Population preference values for health states in relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the United Kingdom. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0377-3.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Attema AE, Edelaar-Peeters Y, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Office for National Statistics. Overview of the UK population: February 2016. 2016. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/february2016. Accessed 10 Jul 2018.
  30. 30.
    Husbands S, Jowett S, Barton P, Coast J. How qualitative methods can be used to inform model development. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:607–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ogwulu CB, Jackson LJ, Kinghorn P, Roberts TE. A systematic review of the techniques used to value temporary health states. Value Health. 2017;20:1180–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stoniute J, Mott DJ, Shen J. Challenges in valuing temporary health states for economic evaluation: a review of empirical applications of the chained time trade-off method. Value Health. 2018;21(5):605–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.3015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ara R, Brazier J, Zouraq IA. The use of health state utility values in decision models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:77–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0550-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Namita Joshi
    • 1
  • Marja Hensen
    • 2
  • Sachin Patel
    • 3
  • Weiwei Xu
    • 2
  • Kathy Lasch
    • 4
  • Elly Stolk
    • 5
  1. 1.Pharmerit InternationalBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Pharmerit InternationalRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Oncology (Haematology, Cell, and Gene)Novartis UKCamberleyUK
  4. 4.Pharmerit InternationalBostonUSA
  5. 5.The EuroQol Research FoundationRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations