Search

Purpose: Different health state utility (HSU) instruments produce different utilities for the same individuals, thereby compromising the intended comparability of economic evaluations of health care interventions. When developing crosswalks, previous studies have indicated nonlinear relationships. This paper inquires into the degree of nonlinearity across the four most widely used HSU-instruments and proposes exchange rates that differ depending on the severity levels of the health state utility scale.Methods: Overall, 7933 respondents from six countries, 1760 in a non-diagnosed healthy group and 6173 in seven disease groups, reported their health states using four different instruments: EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quantile regressions investigate the degree of nonlinear relationships between these instruments. To compare the instruments across different disease severities, we split the health state utility scale into utility intervals with 0.2 successive decrements in utility starting from perfect health at 1.00. Exchange rates (ERs) are calculated as the mean utility difference between two utility intervals on one HSU-instrument divided by the difference in mean utility on another HSU-instrument.Results: Quantile regressions reveal significant nonlinear relationships across all four HSU-instruments. The degrees of nonlinearities differ, with a maximum degree of difference in the coefficients along the health state utility scale of 3.34 when SF-6D is regressed on EQ-5D. At the lower end of the health state utility scale, the exchange rate from SF-6D to EQ-5D is 2.11, whilst at the upper end it is 0.38.Conclusion: Comparisons at different utility levels illustrate the fallacy of using linear functions as crosswalks between HSU-instruments. The existence of nonlinear relationships between different HSU-instruments suggests that level-specific exchange rates should be used when converting a change in utility on the instrument used, onto a corresponding utility change had another instrument been used. Accounting for nonlinearities will increase the validity of the comparison for decision makers when faced with a choice between interventions whose calculations of QALY gains have been based on different HSU-instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the early 1970s, aluminium toxicity was first implicated in the pathogenesis of clinical disorders in patients with chronic renal failure involving bone (renal osteomalacia) or brain tissue (dialysis encephalopathy). Before that time the toxic effects of aluminium ingestion were not considered to be a major concern because absorption seemed unlikely to occur. Meanwhile, aluminium toxicity has been investigated in countless epidemiological and clinical studies as well as in animal experiments and many papers have been published on the subject. It is now commonly acknowledged that aluminium toxicity can be induced by infusion of aluminium-contaminated dialysis fluids, by parenteral nutrition solutions, and by oral exposure as a result of aluminium-containing pharmaceutical products such as aluminium-based phosphate binders or antacid intake. Over-the-counter antacids are the most important source for human aluminium exposure from a quantitative point of view. However, aluminium can act as a powerful neurological toxicant and provoke embryonic and fetal toxic effects in animals and humans after gestational exposure. Despite these facts, the patient information leaflets from European antacids that are available OTC show substantial differences regarding warnings from aluminium toxicity. It seems advisable that all patients should receive the same information on aluminium toxicity from patient information leaflets, in particular with regard to the increased absorption through concomitant administration with citrate-containing beverages and the use of such antacids during pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]