Published February 21, 2015 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Health state utility values for diabetic retinopathy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Creators

  • 1. University of Nottingham
  • 2. University of Sheffield
  • 3. University of Liverpool
  • 4. Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Description

Background

People with diabetic retinopathy tend to have lower levels of health-related quality of life than individuals with no retinopathy. Strategies for screening and treatment have been shown to be cost-effective. In order to reduce the bias in cost-effectiveness estimates, systematic reviews of health state utility values (HSUVs) are crucial for health technology assessment and the development of decision analytic models. A review and synthesis of HSUVs for the different stages of disease progression in diabetic retinopathy has not previously been conducted.

Methods/Design

We will conduct a systematic review of the available literature that reports HSUVs for people with diabetic retinopathy, in correspondence with current stage of disease progression and/or visual acuity. We will search Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, and EconLit to identify relevant English-language articles. Data will subsequently be synthesized using linear mixed effects modeling meta-regression. Additionally, reported disease severity classifications will be mapped to a four-level grading scale for diabetic retinopathy.

Discussion

The systematic review and meta-analysis will provide important evidence for future model-based economic evaluations of technologies for diabetic retinopathy. The meta-regression will enable the estimation of utility values at different disease stages for patients with particular characteristics and will also highlight where the design of the study and HSUV instrument have influenced the reported utility values. We believe this protocol to be the first of its kind to be published.

Notes

Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014012891

Files

s13643-015-0006-6-s1.pdf

Files (677.4 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:0b6296a2881ddebcd4d03546b71c460b
181.6 kB Preview Download
md5:53dbe05ec298b987893a2653fe369ed2
127.4 kB Preview Download
md5:9e1dad577aaa7b450f129c7e048d587a
368.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CCW, Klein R, Muñoz B, Friedman DS et al.. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmology. 2004; 122(4):477-85.
  • Bunce C. Wormald R. Leading causes of certification for blindness and partial sight in England & Wales. BMC Public Health. 2006; 6:58.
  • Mohamed Q, Gillies MC, Wong TY. Management of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review. JAMA. 2007; 298(8):902-16.
  • Li R, Zhang P, Barker LE, Chowdhury FM, Zhang X. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Diabetes care. 2010; 33(8):1872-94.
  • Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S, Squires H. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 13: Indentifying and reviewing evidence to inform the conceptualisation and population of cost-effectiveness models. Tech. rep. 2011.
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Tech. rep. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2008.
  • Tosh JC, Longworth LJ, George E. Utility values in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals. Value in Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2011; 14:102-9.
  • Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis Int: A J Established Result Cooperation between Eur Found Osteoporosis Nat Osteoporosis Found USA. 2002; 13(10):768-76.
  • Bremner KE, Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SMH, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2007; 27(3):288-98
  • Doth AH, Hansson PT, Jensen MP, Taylor RS. The burden of neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of health utilities. Pain. 2010; 149(2):338-44.
  • McLernon DJ, Dillon J, Donnan PT. Health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2008; 28(4):582-92.
  • Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2002; 22(6):475-81.
  • Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE. An updated systematic review of Health State Utility Values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporosis Int: J established Result Cooperation between Eur Found Osteoporosis Nat Osteoporosis Found USA. 2009; 20(6):853-68.
  • Sturza J.. A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2010; 30(6):685-93.
  • Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier JE. Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2010; 10(5):553-66.
  • Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke; J Cerebral Circulation. 2001; 32(6):1425-9.
  • Lung TWC, Hayes AJ, Hayen A, Farmer A, Clarke PM. A meta-analysis of health state valuations for people with diabetes: explaining the variation across methods and implications for economic evaluation. Qual life Res: an Int J Quality Life Aspects Treat, Care Rehabilitation. 2011; 20(10):1669-78.
  • Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, Howard K, Webster AC. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(9):e1001307.
  • Bermingham SL, Ashe JF. Systematic review of the impact of urinary tract infections on health-related quality of life. BJU Int. 2012; 110(11 Pt C):E830-6.
  • Doyle S, Lloyd A, Moore L, Ray J, Gray A. A systematic review and critical assessment of health state utilities. PharmacoEconomics. 2012; 30(12):1133-43.
  • van Litsenburg RRL, Kunst A, Huisman J, Ket JCF, Kaspers GJL, Gemke RJBJ. Health status utilities in pediatrics: a systematic review of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34:21-32.
  • Mohiuddin S, Payne K. Utility values for adults with unipolar depression: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34(5):666-85.
  • Beaudet A, Clegg J, Thuresson PO, Lloyd A, McEwan P. Review of utility values for economic modeling in type 2 diabetes. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2014; 17(4):462-70.
  • Djalalov S, Rabeneck L, Tomlinson G, Bremner KE, Hilsden R, Hoch JS. A review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer utilities. Medical Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34(6):809-18.
  • Kinney MR, Burfitt SN, Stullenbarger E, Rees B, DeBolt MR. Quality of life in cardiac patient research: a meta-analysis. Nursing Res. 1996; 45(3):173-80.
  • Dijkers M. Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta analysis of the effects of disablement components. Spinal cord. 1997; 35(12):829-40.
  • Meacock R, Dale N, Harrison MJ. The humanistic and economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review. PharmacoEconomics. 2013; 31:49-61.
  • Poku E, Brazier JE, Carlton J, Ferreira A. Health state utilities in patients with diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular oedema and age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmology. 2013; 13:74.
  • Brazier JE, Papaioannou D, Cantrell A.. Identifying and reviewing health state utility values for populating decision models. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. 2nd ed.. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, Marsh K, Donaldson C, editors. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford; 2010.
  • Jones S, Edwards RT. Diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review of the economic evidence. Diabetic Med: J Br Diabetic Assoc. 2010; 27(3):249-56.
  • Tosh J, Brazier JE, Evans P, Longworth LA. review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2012; 15:118-27.
  • Wilkinson CP, Ferris FL, Klein RE, Lee PP, Agardh CD, Davis M, Dills D, Kampik A, Pararajasegaram R, Verdaguer JT. Proposed international clinical diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema disease severity scales. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110(9):1677-82.
  • NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. http://diabeticeye.screening.nhs.uk (2014). Accessed 2 Oct 2014.
  • Grading diabetic retinopathy from stereoscopic color fundus photographs-an extension of the modified airlie house classification. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98(5):786-806.
  • Harding SP, Broadbent DM, Neoh C, White MC, Vora J. Sensitivity and specificity of photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in screening for sight threatening eye disease: the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Study. BMJ. 1995; 311(7013):1131-5.
  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009; b2535:339.
  • Papaioannou D, Brazier JE, Paisley S. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 9: the identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. Tech. rep. 2011.
  • Papaioannou D, Brazier JE, Paisley S. Systematic searching and selection of health state utility values from the literature. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2013; 16(4):686-95.
  • Saramago P, Manca A, Sutton AJ. Deriving input parameters for cost-effectiveness modeling: taxonomy of data types and approaches to their statistical synthesis. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2012; 15(5):639-49.
  • Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S. Reviewing the evidence to inform the population of cost-effectiveness models within health technology assessments. Value Health. J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2013; 16(5):830-6.
  • Zechmeister-Koss I, Schnell-Inderst P, Zauner G. Appropriate evidence sources for populating decision analytic models within health technology assessment (HTA): a systematic review of HTA manuals and health economic guidelines. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34(3):288-99.
  • SHERPA Search. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/repositories/sherpasearchalluk.html (2014). Accessed 3 Dec 2014.
  • RePEc. http://repec.org (2014). Accessed 3 Dec 2014.
  • Open Grey. http://www.opengrey.eu (2014). Accessed 3 Dec 2014.
  • Cooper NJ, Coyle D, Abrams K, Mugford M, Sutton A. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Services Res Policy. 2005; 10(4):245-50.