학제간연구 | Interdisciplinary Studies in Gambling | 跨学科研究
- date : 2015-05-20 01:10|hit : 1428
-
- Article] Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis
-
DocNo of ILP: 4079
Doc. Type: Article
Title: Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis
Authors: Beresniak, A; Russell, AS; Haraoui, B; Bessette, L; Bombardier, C; Duru, G
Full Name of Authors: Beresniak, Ariel; Russell, Anthony S.; Haraoui, Boulos; Bessette, Louis; Bombardier, Claire; Duru, Gerard
Keywords by Author: utility; quality-adjusted life-years; rheumatoid arthritis
Keywords Plus: QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HEALTH STATES; EUROQOL; INSTRUMENTS; INFLIXIMAB; VALUES; INDEX
Abstract: Utility assessment and cost-utility analyses such as costs/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) are frequently presented to demonstrate the value of new treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, utility indicators require various methods that introduce significant methodological challenges, which directly influence the results and ensuing reimbursement decisions. Our objective was to review and discuss these challenges and the validity of frequently used utility assessment techniques in the context of RA. Coding the intensity of preferences or variations in patient satisfaction in order to assess utility implies extreme mathematical assumptions about a patient's rationality regarding his/her preferences towards different given health states. The construction and assumptions of commonly used "direct approaches" (standard gamble, time tradeoff, visual analog scale) and indirect approaches (EQ5D, HUI, SF6D) are presented. Other approaches such as transformation in utility of data from clinical (Health Assessment Questionnaire) or quality of life instruments ("mapping technique") are analyzed as they appear to generate uncertainty and a wide variation in estimated utility values in the context of RA. Utility assessment and cost-utility analyses in RA, which form the basis of the QALY, are frequently published and often requested by health technology assessment agencies to assist reimbursement decisions. However, when interpreting the results, the medical community must take into consideration the limitations and significant uncertainty of these approaches. In light of these findings, real cost-effectiveness analyses based on observed clinical outcomes appear to be more robust and reliable to assist decision-making, particularly in the context of RA.
Cate of OECD: Clinical medicine
Year of Publication: 2007
Business Area: other
Detail Business: medicine & science
Country: Canada
Study Area: culture, quality of life, utility, utility, Evaluation, methos, method, patient, preference
Name of Journal: JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Language: English
Country of Authors: Univ Paris 05, LIRAES, Paris, France; CNRS Natl Ctr Sci Res, Lyon, France; Data Mining Int, Geneva, Switzerland; Univ Alberta Hosp, Edmonton, AB T6G 2B7, Canada; Univ Montreal, Montreal Rheumatol Inst, Montreal, PQ, Canada; Ctr Hosp Univ Quebec CHUL, Quebec City, PQ, Canada; Univ Toronto, Mt Sinai Hosp, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada
Press Adress: Russell, AS (reprint author), Univ Alberta, Rheumat Dis Unit, 562 Heritage Med Res Ctr, Edmonton, AB T6G 2S2, Canada.
Email Address: as.russell@ualberta.ca
Citaion:
Funding:
Lists of Citation: Ariza-Ariza R, 2006, ARTHRIT RHEUM-ARTHR, V55, P751, DOI 10.1002/art.22226; Arrow Kenneth, 1970, SOCIAL CHOICE INDIVI; Bansback NJ, 2005, DRUGS, V65, P473, DOI 10.2165/00003495-200565040-00004; BOYLE MH, 1984, MED CARE, V22, P1045, DOI 10.1097/00005650-198411000-00007; Brazier J, 1998, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V51, P1115, DOI 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6; BROOKS RG, 1991, HEALTH POLICY, V18, P37, DOI 10.1016/0168-8510(91)90142-K; CARRHILL RA, 1990, HLTH POLICY, V16, P199; Conner-Spady B, 2003, MED CARE, V41, P791, DOI 10.1097/00005650-200307000-00003; Duru G, 2002, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V20, P463, DOI 10.2165/00019053-200220070-00004; *EUROQOL GROUP, 1992, HLTH POL, V20, P3218; FEENY D, 1995, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V7, P490, DOI 10.2165/00019053-199507060-00004; GAFNI A, 1994, HLTH POLICY, V28, P67; Gerard K, 1993, Health Econ, V2, P59, DOI 10.1002/hec.4730020108; Jorstad IC, 2005, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V52, pS660; Marra CA, 2005, SOC SCI MED, V60, P1571, DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034; Michaud K, 2005, ARTHRITIS RHEUM, V52, pS400; NORD E, 1991, HEALTH POLICY, V18, P25, DOI 10.1016/0168-8510(91)90141-J; PLISKIN JS, 1980, OPER RES, V28, P223; PLISKIN JS, 1980, OPER RES, V28, P206, DOI 10.1287/opre.28.1.206; Russell AS, 2003, J RHEUMATOL, V30, P941; Suarez-Almazor ME, 2001, J RHEUMATOL, V28, P648; TORRANCE GW, 2001, MED DECIS MAKING, V2, P239; Von Neumann J., 1953, THEORY GAMES EC BEHA; Wong JB, 2002, AM J MED, V113, P400, DOI 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01243-3
Number of Citaion: 24
Publication: J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
City of Publication: TORONTO
Address of Publication: 920 YONGE ST, SUITE 115, TORONTO, ONTARIO M4W 3C7, CANADA
ISSN: 0315-162X
29-Character Source Abbreviation: J RHEUMATOL
ISO Source Abbreviation: J. Rheumatol.
Volume: 34
Version: 11
Start of File: 2193
End of File: 2200
DOI:
Number of Pages: 8
Web of Science Category: Rheumatology
Subject Category: Rheumatology
Document Delivery Number: 228WT
Unique Article Identifier: WOS:000250764000013
- reply : 0
-
- list
-
- prev
- next