Search

Objective: To derive a US-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using an international, standardized protocol developed by the EuroQol Group.Methods: Respondents from the US adult population were quota-sampled on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and race. Trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks using the EuroQol Valuation Technology software and routine quality control measures. Data were modeled using a Tobit model for cTTO data, a mixed logit model for DCE data, and a hybrid model that combined cTTO and DCE data. Model performance was compared on the basis of logical ordering of coefficients, statistical significance, parsimony, and theoretical considerations.Results: Of 1134 respondents, 1062, 1099, and 1102 respondents provided useable cTTO, DCE, and cTTO or DCE responses, respectively, on the basis of quality control criteria and interviewer judgment. Respondent demographic characteristics and health status were similar to the 2015 US Census. The Tobit model was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from -0.573 (55 555) to 1 (11 111), with 20% of all predicted health states scores less than 0 (ie, worse than dead).Conclusions: A societal value set for the EQ-5D-5L was developed that can be used for economic evaluations and decision making in US health systems. The internationally established, standardized protocol used to develop this US-based value set was recommended by the EuroQol Group and can facilitate cross-country comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The D1 model that was developed to predict US societal preferences for EQ-5D health states addressed several important conceptual and statistical issues. However, it has been criticized for being too complex, failing to account for the nonnormal distribution of health state values, and the transformation of preferences for worse-than-death health states before estimation. This research was conducted to develop an improved model for predicting median preferences for EQ-5D health states for the US population. Methods: Probability-weighted least absolute deviations regression was used to fit models to the time trade-off data collected in the US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States study. No transformation was applied to the values for states considered worse than death. Several model specifications that differed with respect to explanatory variables were evaluated using two-sample cross-validation. Results: The best-fitting model included only fixed effects for moderate or severe problems in each of the 5 EQ-5D dimensions and excluded a constant. This specification yielded rank correlations between observed and predicted values and median observed and predicted values of 0.635 and 0.991, respectively, as well as a median absolute error of 0.026. The predicted median preferences ranged from 1.00 for full health, to –0.81 for the worst possible health state. Conclusions: Due to its simplicity and robustness, a median model is superior to other models for predicting US population preferences for EQ-5D health states. The predictions of this model are suggested for use in applications that require US societal health state values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. An overview of the emerging field of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and its relevance to pharmacists and pharmacy-based decision-makers is provided. Summary. The U.S. government is investing over $1 billion on CER over the next two years. This investment is in part driven by the recognition that, despite having the highest per capita health care expenditures in the world, the United States does not always perform well on measures of health compared with other countries. There also is increased awareness of the limited information provided by results of traditional randomized clinical trials to inform decisions about therapeutic alternatives as applied in actual practice. Comparative effectiveness studies have two important principal components: (1) the comparison of two or more agents or interventions that are considered true therapeutic alternatives and (2) the examination of effects (outcomes) in actual practice. Comparative effectiveness studies differ from traditional efficacy studies in several ways, including the research question addressed, comparison groups, patient population, setting, outcomes measured, and validity. Studies that are within the scope of CER can be categorized as primary comparative effectiveness studies or secondary comparative effectiveness studies. CER also can be used to compare medical devices, procedures, health services, or any competing intervention. Conclusion. Comparative effectiveness is an emerging area of research relevant to many areas of health care, especially pharmacotherapy. The knowledge gained from CER is important to pharmacists when applying drug information and making decisions related to drug therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The shift toward virtual academic detailing (AD) was accelerated by the COVID‐19 pandemic. Aims and Objectives: We aimed to examine the role of external, contextual, and intrinsic programme‐specific factors in virtual engagement of healthcare providers (HCPs) and delivery of AD. Methods: AD groups throughout North America were contacted to participate in semistructured interviews. An interview guide was constructed by adapting the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A point of emphasis included strategies AD groups employed for provider engagement while implementing virtual AD programmes. Independent coders conducted qualitative analysis using the framework method. Results: Fifteen AD groups from Canada (n = 3) and the United States (n = 12) participated. Technological issues and training detailers and HCPs were challenges during the transition to virtual AD visits. Restrictions on in‐person activities during the pandemic created difficulties engaging HCPs and fewer AD visits. Continuing education was one strategy to incentivize participation, but credits were often not claimed by HCPs. Groups with established networks and prior experience with virtual AD leveraged connections to mitigate disruptions and continue AD visits. Other facilitators included emphasizing contemporary topics, including opioid education beyond fundamental guidelines. Virtual AD had the additional benefit of expanding geographic reach and flexible scheduling with providers. Conclusions: AD groups across North America have shifted to virtual outreach and delivery strategies. This trend toward virtual AD may aid outreach to vulnerable rural communities, improving health equity. More research is needed on the effectiveness of virtual AD and its future implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications. Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure–Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods. Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure–Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations. All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items. • Generic preference-based measures (PBMs) are recommended to assess patient-reported outcomes across interventions and to allow for comparative assessments across unrelated health conditions and interventions. Generic PBMs may exclude dimensions relevant to specific conditions, whereas condition-specific PBMs can contain items related to specific symptoms. Recent work has identified several concepts that are relevant to health-related quality of life and psychological wellbeing, which are not measured by existing outcome measures. • Patients who had received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom and the United States evaluated 3 generic and 2 condition-specific PBMs during qualitative interviews. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, missing concepts considered by patients as important to measure for their cancer and cancer treatment experiences. Language and format were frequently challenged, with patients suggesting changes to multiple items across all measures. Recall periods were frequently raised as problematic because of the substantial variation in cancer symptoms within a given day or week. • Given the burden of cancer symptoms and drug treatment effects, capturing all relevant outcomes of people with cancer is necessary to inform accurate decision making for cancer technologies. Modification of existing measures should be considered with regard to measurement gaps identified. New cancer-specific tools could be considered, inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items. These developments have a large potential for impact given the high proportions of oncology health technology assessment submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare self-rated health among the United States general population in 2002 and 2017.Methods: Secondary data were analyzed from two EQ-5D valuation studies conducted in 2002 and 2017. Both studies included the EQ-5D-3L self-classifier and visual analog scale (VAS), where health is rated from 0 (worst imaginable health) to 100 (best imaginable health). VAS scores were compared between time points using regression models, adjusting for sociodemographic factors (Model 1), plus illness (Model 2), and health problems according to the EQ-5D classifier (Model 3).Results: Mean VAS scores in 2002 [84.4 (SD = 16.1)] were not different from 2017 [84.6 (SD = 14.5)] (p = 0.63), nor different after adjusting for demographics (Model 1) or illness (Model 2). However, 2017 VAS mean scores were significantly higher than 2002 [2.2 (95% CI 1.36-3.10)] upon adjusting for the presence of dimension-specific health problems.Conclusions: Self-rated health of the general US adult population in 2017 was similar to 2002, but after adjusting for health problems, scores were slightly higher in 2017. Sociodemographic shifts in age and education explain some of the differences in scores, and by removing health and sociodemographic factors, we found the VAS reveals self-rated health is slightly better in 2017 than 2002. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Heroin use in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. The objective of this paper is to estimate the annual societal cost of heroin use disorder in the United States in 2015 US dollars. Methods: An analytic model was created that included incarceration and crime; treatment for heroin use disorder; chronic infectious diseases (HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and Tuberculosis) and their treatments; treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome; lost productivity; and death by heroin overdose. Results: Using literature-based estimates to populate the model, the cost of heroin use disorder was estimated to be $51.2 billion in 2015 US dollars ($50,799 per heroin user). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that overall cost estimates were sensitive to the number of heroin users, cost of HCV treatment, and cost of incarcerating heroin users. Conclusion: The annual cost of heroin use disorder to society in the United States emphasizes the need for sustained investment in healthcare and non-healthcare related strategies that reduce the likelihood of abuse and provide care and support for users to overcome the disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a cohort study which evaluates the effectiveness of regimens containing tiotropium bromide in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The study observed two separate groups of patients with a diagnosis of COPD in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health care system. Results of the study indicate that the use of tiotropium, with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β-agonists (LABA), was associated with reduced risk of mortality in COPD patients.