Search

Rationale, Aims, and Objectives: While different imaging and treatment options are available in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care, there is a lack of data regarding their use across Europe. We examined the diagnostic and treatment strategies in patients with known or suspected ACS as reported by physicians and identified variations in responses across European countries and geographical areas. Method: A web‐based clinician survey focusing on ACS imaging and revascularization treatments was circulated through email distribution lists and websites of European professional societies in the field of cardiology. We collected information on respondents' clinical setting and specialty. Reported percentages of patients receiving imaging or treatment modalities and percentages of clinicians reporting to use modalities in a range of clinical scenarios were analyzed. Statistical comparisons were performed. Results: In total, 69 responses were received (Sweden [n = 20], United Kingdom [n = 16], Northern/Western Europe [n = 17], Southern Europe [n = 9], and Central Europe [n = 7]). Considerable variations between geographical areas were seen in terms of reported diagnostic modalities and treatment strategies. For example, when presented with the scenario of a theoretical 45‐year‐old smoking female with a suspected ACS, 56% of UK clinicians reported to use coronary computed tomography angiography, compared to only 10% of Swedish clinicians (P =.002). Large variations were observed regarding the reported use of fractional flow reserve by physicians for non‐culprit lesions during invasive management of myocardial infarction patients (44% in Sweden, 31% in the United Kingdom, and 30% in Northern/Western Europe vs non‐use in Central and Southern Europe). Conclusions: In this survey, respondents reported different diagnostic and treatment strategies in ACS care. These variations seem to have geographic components. Larger studies or real world data are needed to verify these observations and investigate their causes. More research is needed to compare the quality and efficiency of ACS care across countries and explore pathways for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Value of information (VOI) analysis provides information on opportunity cost of a decision in healthcare by estimating the cost of reducing parametric uncertainty and quantifying the value of generating additional evidence. This study is an application of the VOI methodology to the problem of choosing between home telemonitoring and nurse telephone support over usual care in chronic heart failure management in the Netherlands. Methods: The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and the expected value of partially perfect information (EVPPI) analyses were based on an informal threshold of €20K per quality-adjusted life-year. These VOI-analyses were applied to a probabilistic Markov model comparing the 20-year costs and effects in three interventions. The EVPPI explored the value of decision uncertainty caused by the following group of parameters: treatment-specific transition probabilities between New York Heart Association (NYHA) defined disease states, utilities associated with the disease states, number of hospitalizations and ER visits, health state specific costs, and the distribution of patients per NYHA group. We performed the analysis for two population sizes in the Netherlands—patients in all NYHA classes of severity, and patients in NYHA IV class only. Results: The population EVPI for an effective population of 2,841,567 CHF patients in All NYHA classes of severity over the next 20 years is more than €4.5B, implying that further research is highly cost-effective. In the NYHA IV only analysis, for the effective population of 208,003 patients over next 20 years, the population EVPI at the same informal threshold is approx. €590M. The EVPPI analysis showed that the only relevant group of parameters that contribute to the overall decision uncertainty are transition probabilities, in both All NYHA and NYHA IV analyses. Conclusions: Results of our VOI exercise show that the cost of uncertainty regarding the decision on reimbursement of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients is high in the Netherlands, and that future research is needed, mainly on the transition probabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The question of how to value lost productivity in economic evaluations has been subject of debate in the past twenty years. According to the Washington panel, lost productivity influences health-related quality of life and should thus be considered a health effect instead of a cost to avoid double counting. Current empirical evidence on the inclusion of income loss when valuing health states is not decisive. We examined the relationship between three aspects of lost productivity (work-status, absenteeism and presenteeism) and patient or social valuation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods Cross-sectional survey data were collected from a total of 830 respondents with a rheumatic disorder from four West-European countries. Health-related quality of life was expressed in either the European societal utility using EQ-5D-3 L or the patient valuation using EQ-VAS. The impact of work-status (four categories), absenteeism (absent from paid work during the past three months), and presenteeism (QQ method) on EQ-5D utilities and VAS scores was examined in linear regression analyses taking into account demographic characteristics and disease severity (duration, pain and restriction). Results The relationship between work-status, absenteeism or presenteeism and HRQoL was stronger for patient valuation than societal valuation. Compared to work-status and presenteeism the relationship between absenteeism and HRQoL was even less explicit. However, results for all measures of lost productivity are only marginally significant and negligible compared to the influence of disease-related restrictions. Conclusions This survey study in patients with a rheumatic disorder in four European countries, does not fully support the Washington panel's claim that lost productivity is a significantly related with HRQoL, and this is even more apparent for absenteeism than for work-status and presenteeism. For West-European countries, there is no reason, to include absenteeism in the QALY. Findings need to be confirmed in other disease areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach., Objectives: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions., Methods: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards., Results: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided., Conclusions: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: When national pharmacoeconomic guidelines are compared, different recommendations are identified on how to identify, measure and value lost productivity, leading to difficulties when comparing lost productivity estimates across countries. From a transferability point of view, the question arises of whether differences between countries regarding lost productivity are the result of using different calculation methods (methodological differences) or of other between-country differences. When lost productivity data differ significantly across countries, the transferability of lost productivity data across countries is hindered., Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate whether country of residence has a significant influence on the quantity of lost productivity among patients with rheumatic disorders. Confounding factors that might differ between countries were corrected for, while the methodology used to identify and measure lost productivity was kept the same., Methods: This question was investigated by means of an online questionnaire filled out by 200 respondents with a rheumatic disorder per country in four European countries, namely the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and France. In addition to those regarding lost productivity, the questionnaire contained questions about patient characteristics, disability insurance, disease characteristics, quality of life and job characteristics as these variables are expected to influence lost productivity in terms of absenteeism and presenteeism. The data were analysed by regression analyses, in which different components - being absent in last 3 months, number of days absent and presenteeism - of lost productivity were the main outcome measures and other variables, such as gender, impact of disease, shift work, job control, partial disability and overall general health, were corrected for., Results: The results showed that country sometimes has a significant influence on lost productivity and that other variables such as, for example, age, disease severity, number of contract hours, decision latitude, experienced health (as reported on the visual analogue scale) and partial disability, also influence lost productivity. A significant influence of country of residence was found on the variables 'being absent in the last three months', 'number of days absent' and 'quality of work on the last working day'. However, country did not influence 'quantity of work on the last working day' and 'overall presenteeism on the last working day'., Conclusion: It can be concluded that country has a significant influence on lost productivity among patients with rheumatic disorders, when corrected for other variables that have an influence on absenteeism and presenteeism. Transferring lost productivity data across countries without adaptation is hindered by the significant differences between countries in this patient group. As a result, transferring lost productivity data, being either monetary values or volumes of productivity losses, between countries can give wrong estimations of the cost effectiveness of treatments.

Unlabelled: For at least two decades, there has been an intense debate on whether and how to include the value of lost productivity in economic evaluations. This debate is often reflected in pharmacoeconomic guidelines, which have been developed to indicate the methods and requirements for the design, execution, and reporting of economic evaluations in a particular country., Objective: To examine what various national pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommend regarding the identification, measurement, and valuation of lost productivity., Methods: First, the theoretical framework on how lost productivity can be identified, measured, and valued is described. Second, a summary sheet has been used to identify various pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommendations regarding the value of lost productivity., Results: Twenty-two of the 30 guidelines identified recommend performing economic evaluations using the societal perspective. Nevertheless, even if the societal perspective is recommended, it is not always clear how the value of lost productivity should be taken into account. Most guidelines recommend including the costs of absenteeism from paid and/or unpaid work. In addition, although no agreement exists on how lost productivity should be valued, none of the guidelines recommended using the US panel approach for the valuation of lost productivity., Discussion: The different recommendations hinder international transferability of the value of lost productivity. This difficulty is mainly caused by different recommendations regarding identification and valuation. These differences result from the debate and lack of consensus on including the value of lost productivity losses in economic evaluations. It will become easier to transfer data across jurisdictions if all data are reported transparently.

Background: Within the framework of economic evaluations, the transferability of utility scores between jurisdictions remains unclear. The EQ-5D is a generic instrument for measuring health-related quality of life in economic evaluations, which can be used for comparing utility scores across countries. At present, the EQ-5D has several national value sets or tariffs. Nevertheless, utility estimates from foreign studies are often used directly for cost-effectiveness estimates, without adapting by applying the appropriate national value set. It is unclear if this practice is advisable, due to dissimilarities between the national value sets., Objectives: To examine the effects of differences in national EQ-5D value sets on absolute and marginal utilities of health states, and determine to what degree these differences can be explained by methodological factors., Methods: First, the relative importance of the EQ-5D domains for the utility estimates was compared across the 15 value sets. Second, two hypothetical health states for a depressed patient and a pain patient (21232 and 33321) were selected for additional analysis, by comparing the utilities as scored by the value sets. The marginal influence of a one-level deterioration in a domain of these health states on the utility estimate was then determined. Third, the differences between the value sets were examined in more detail by using multilevel analysis to examine the role of methodological differences in the valuation studies., Results: Differences can be perceived between the national value sets of the EQ-5D in the preferences for the domains. The utilities of the two hypothetical health states show that the value sets differ substantially. Furthermore, the differences between the marginal values of the deteriorations are large, which can be explained partly by the type of valuation method. Other methodological differences also influence the value sets., Conclusions: All results indicate that the differences between the EQ-5D value sets are considerable and should not be ignored. The differences can largely be explained by methodological differences in the valuation studies. The remaining differences may reflect cultural dissimilarities between countries. Therefore, further research should focus on investigating the transferability of utilities across countries or agreeing on a standard to perform valuation studies. For the time being, transferring utilities from one country to another without any adjustment is not advisable.