Using Published Health Utilities in Cost-Utility Analyses: Discrepancies and Issues in Cardiovascular Disease

Ting Zhou, Zhiyuan Chen, Hongchao Li and Feng Xie
Additional contact information
Ting Zhou: School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Zhiyuan Chen: Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Hongchao Li: School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Feng Xie: Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Medical Decision Making, 2021, vol. 41, issue 6, 685-692

Abstract: Background Health utilities are commonly used as quality weights to calculate quality-adjusted life years in cost-utility analysis (CUA). However, if published health utilities are not properly used, the credibility of CUA could be affected. Objectives To identify discrepancies in using published health utilities in CUAs for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods CVD CUAs in the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry that reported health utilities were included in the analysis. References cited for health utilities in these CUAs were reviewed to identify the original health utility studies. The description and value of health utilities used in the CUA were compared with those reported in the original utility studies. Logistic regression was used to identify the factors that can predict the discrepancy. Results A total of 585 eligible CUAs published between 1977 and 2016 were identified and reviewed. Of these studies, 74.5% were published between 2007 and 2016. 442 CUAs that used a total of 2235 health utilities published in 203 original utility studies were included for the comparison. As compared with those utilities originally reported, only 596 (26.7%) health utilities had the same description and value, whereas 991 health utilities (44.3%) differed in both description and value. Of 1290 health utilities with a different description, 69.1% were due to different severity or disease. No explanation or justification was provided for 1171 (87.4%) of 1340 health utilities with different value. Conclusions There are concerning discrepancies in using published health utilities for CVD CUAs. Given the important role health utilities play in CUAs, authors of CUAs should always refer to the original studies for health utilities and be transparent about how published health utilities are selected and incorporated into CUAs.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease; cost-utility analysis; health utility; quality (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211004532 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:6:p:685-692

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211004532

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().