Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Methodological Issues Surrounding the Use of Baseline Health-Related Quality of Life Data to Inform Trial-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions Within Emergency and Critical Care Settings: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Trial-based cost-utility analyses require health-related quality of life data that generate utility values in order to express health outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Assessments of baseline health-related quality of life are problematic where trial participants are incapacitated or critically ill at the time of randomisation. This review aims to identify and critique methods for handling non-availability of baseline health-related quality of life data in trial-based cost-utility analyses within emergency and critical illness settings.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines, to identify trial-based cost-utility analyses of interventions within emergency and critical care settings. Databases searched included the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library (1991–July 2016), Cochrane Library (all years); National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (all years) and Ovid MEDLINE/Embase (without time restriction). Strategies employed to handle non-availability of baseline health-related quality of life data in final QALY estimations were identified and critiqued.

Results

A total of 4224 published reports were screened, 19 of which met the study inclusion criteria (mean trial size 1670): 14 (74 %) from the UK, four (21%) from other European countries and one (5%) from India. Twelve studies (63%) were based in emergency departments and seven (37%) in intensive care units. Only one study was able to elicit patient-reported health-related quality of life at baseline. To overcome the lack of baseline data when estimating QALYs, eight studies (42%) assigned a fixed utility weight corresponding to either death, an unconscious health state or a country-specific norm to patients at baseline, four (21%) ignored baseline utilities, three (16%) applied values from another study, one (5%) generated utility values via retrospective recall and one (5%) elicited utilities from experts. A preliminary exploration of these methods shows that incremental QALY estimation is unlikely to be biased if balanced trial allocation is achieved and subsequent collection of health-related quality of life data occurs at the earliest possible opportunity following commencement of treatment, followed by an adequate number of follow-up assessments.

Conclusion

Trial-based cost-utility analyses within emergency and critical illness settings have applied different methods for QALY estimation, employing disparate assumptions about the health-related quality of life of patients at baseline. Where baseline measurement is not practical, measurement at the earliest opportunity following commencement of treatment should minimise bias in QALY estimation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. CDR Directorate at Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Canada common drug review submission guidelines for manufacturers. CCOHTA, 2013.

  4. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: PBAC; 2002.

  5. Dolan P, Roberts J. Modelling valuations for Eq-5d health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care. 2002;40(5):442–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Furlong WJ, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):375–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, Van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Research Paper 16/01, Office of Health Economics; 2016.

  10. Brazier J, Roberts JR. The estimation of a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shah HA, Dritsaki M, Pink J, Petrou S. Psychometric properties of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith K, Andrew E, Lijovic M, Nehme Z, Bernard S. Quality of life and functional outcomes 12 months after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2015;131:174–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gates S, et al. Beta-Agonist Lung injury TrIal-2 (BALTI-2): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and economic evaluation of intravenous infusion of salbutamol versus placebo in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(38): v–vi, 1–87.

  14. Young D, et al. High-frequency oscillation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(9):806–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mouncey PR, et al. Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1301–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goodacre S, et al. The RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers) trial: a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(23):iii–xi, 1–102.

  17. Goodacre S, et al. Health utility and survival after hospital admission with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Emerg Med J. 2011;28(6):477–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bohmer E, et al. Health and cost consequences of early versus late invasive strategy after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011;18(5):717–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Powell CV, et al. MAGNEsium Trial In Children (MAGNETIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic evaluation of nebulised magnesium sulphate in acute severe asthma in children. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(45):v–vi, 1–216.

  20. Pines JM, Fager SS, Milzman DP. A review of costing methodologies in critical care studies. J Crit Care. 2002;17(3):181–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison D, Murray CJL. The global and refgional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet. 2006;367(9524):1747–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, LiberatiA, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine (OPEN ACCESS). 2009.

  23. Kendrick D, Young B, Mason-Jones AJ, Ilyas N, Achana FA, Cooper NJ, Hubbard SJ, Sutton AJ, Smith S, Wynn P, Mulvaney C, Watson MC, Coupland C. Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention (Review). Evid Based Child Health. 2013;8(3):761–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gyrd-Hansen D, et al. Cost-effectiveness estimate of prehospital thrombolysis: results of the PHANTOM-S study. Neurology. 2015;84(11):1090–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lall R, et al. A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation against conventional artificial ventilation for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The OSCAR (OSCillation in ARDS) study. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(23):1–177, vii.

  27. Rosenthal VD, Udwadia FE, Kumar S, Poojary A, Sankar R, Orellano PW, Durgad S, Thulasiraman M, Bahirune S, Kumbhar S, Patil P. Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of split-septum and single-use prefilled flushing device vs 3-way stopcock on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in India: a randomized clinical trial conducted by the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC). Am J Infect Control. 2015;43:1040–1045.

  28. Macrae D, Grieve R, Allen E, Sadique Z, Betts H, Morris K, et al. A clinical and economic evaluation of Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care (CHiP): a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(26):1–210. doi:10.3310/hta18260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Harvey S, et al. An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in patient management in intensive care: a systematic review and a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(29):iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–133.

  30. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, 2013.

  31. Schuster A, Faulkner M, Zeymer U, Ouarrak T, Eitel I, Desch S, Hasenfuß G, Thiele H. Economic implications of intra-aortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: an analysis from the IABP-SHOCK II-trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015;104:566–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sierink JC, Treskes K, Edwards MJR, Beuker BJA, den Hartog D, Hohmann J, Dijkgraaf MGW, Luitse JSK, Beenen LFM, Hollmann MW, Goslings JC, For the REACT-2 study group*. Immediate total-body CT scanning versus conventional imaging and selective CT scanning in patients with severe trauma (REACT-2): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:673–83.

  33. Peek GJ, et al. Randomised controlled trial and parallel economic evaluation of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR). Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(35):1–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sintonen H. Comparing properties of the 15D and the EQ-5D in measuring health-related quality of life. Arch Hellen Med. 2001;18(2):156–160.

  35. Perkins GD, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9972):947–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Varni JW, Limbers CA. The PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales Young Adult Version: feasibility, reliability and validity in a university student population. J Health Psychol. 2009;14(4):611–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Luengo-Fernandez R, et al. Quality of life after TIA and stroke: ten-year results of the Oxford Vascular Study. Neurology. 2013;81(18):1588–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sznajder M, Aegerter P, Launois R, Merliere Y, Guidet B, CubRea V. A cost-effectiveness analysis of stays in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27:146–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Dick AW, Perencevich EN, Pogorzelska-Maziarz M, Zwanziger J, Larson EL, Stone PW. A decade of investment in infection prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Infect Control. 2015;43:4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Goodacre S, Cohen J, Bradburn M, Stevens J, Gray A, Benger J, et al. 3Mg trial: a randomised controlled trial of intravenous or nebulised magnesium sulphate versus placebo in adults with acute severe asthma. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(22):1–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Goodacre S, et al. Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care. BMJ. 2004;328(7434):254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lamb SE, et al. Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT): a randomised controlled trial of treatments for whiplash injuries. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(49):iii–iv, 1–141.

  43. Dixon S, et al. Is it cost effective to introduce paramedic practitioners for older people to the ambulance service? Results of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med J. 2009;26(6):446–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14(5):487–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schmier JK, Halpern MT. Patient recall and recall bias of health state and health status. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2004;4(2):159–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wilson R, et al. Retrospective evaluation versus population norms for the measurement of baseline health status. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author contributions

The concept of this manuscript was jointly conceived by Melina Dritsaki, Felix Achana, and Stavros Petrou. Melina Dritsaki and Felix Achana gathered and reviewed the literature and data and drafted the initial manuscript. James Mason drafted the initial work presented in Sect. 4. All authors participated in the interpretation of data and preparation of the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK

    Melina Dritsaki

  2. Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV8 7AL, UK

    Felix Achana, James Mason & Stavros Petrou

Authors
  1. Melina Dritsaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Achana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stavros Petrou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melina Dritsaki.

Ethics declarations

Melina Dritsaki, Felix Achana, James Mason, and Stavros Petrou have no conflicts of interest to disclose. There was no research funding support for this study.

Data availability statement

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary information files.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 94 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dritsaki, M., Achana, F., Mason, J. et al. Methodological Issues Surrounding the Use of Baseline Health-Related Quality of Life Data to Inform Trial-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions Within Emergency and Critical Care Settings: A Systematic Literature Review. PharmacoEconomics 35, 501–515 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0485-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0485-x

Search

Navigation