Key result
Seven cardiovascular conditions show highly heterogeneous baseline utility multipliers in UK health economic models.
Why the study?
Evaluating interventions for cardiovascular disease requires estimates of its effect on utility, warranting an updated review of estimates published since 2013 and appraisal of UK-relevant evidence.
Systematic Review
This review provides a critically appraised, consistent set of baseline utility multipliers for major cardiovascular diseases to improve the accuracy of health economic modeling and cost-utility analyses.
Supports standardized utility multipliers in UK cardiovascular models; extends prior syntheses for consistent decision-analytic use.
PURPOSE: Evaluating interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires estimates of its effect on utility. We aimed to 1) systematically review utility estimates for CVDs published since 2013 and 2) critically appraise UK-relevant estimates and calculate corresponding baseline utility multipliers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (April 22, 2021) using CVD and utility terms. We screened results for primary studies reporting utility distributions for people with experience of heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease, stable angina, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or unstable angina. We extracted characteristics from studies included. For UK estimates based on the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) measure, we assessed risk of bias and applicability to a decision-analytic model, pooled arms/time points as appropriate, and estimated baseline utility multipliers using predicted utility for age- and sex- matched populations without CVD. We sought utility sources from directly applicable studies with low risk of bias, prioritizing plausibility of severity ordering in our base-case model and highest population ascertainment in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: = 29) produced very heterogeneous baseline utility multipliers for each type of CVD, precluding meta-analysis and implying different possible severity orderings. We could find sources that provided a plausible ordering of utilities while adequately representing health states. CONCLUSIONS: We cataloged international CVD utility estimates and calculated UK-relevant baseline utility multipliers. Modelers should consider unreported sources of heterogeneity, such as population differences, when selecting utility evidence from reviews. HIGHLIGHTS: Published systematic reviews have summarized estimates of utility associated with cardiovascular disease published up to 2013.We 1) reviewed utility estimates for 7 types of cardiovascular disease published since 2013, 2) critically appraised UK-relevant studies, and 3) estimated the effect of each cardiovascular disease on baseline utility.Our review 1) recommends a consistent and reliable set of baseline utility multipliers for 7 types of cardiovascular disease and 2) provides systematically identified reference information for researchers seeking utility evidence for their own context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hainsworth et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease (7 types) vs. Age- and sex-matched populations without CVD was evaluated on Baseline utility multipliers. Experience of 7 types of cardiovascular disease was associated with highly heterogeneous baseline utility multipliers, prompting the recommendation of a consistent set of multipliers for UK decision-analytic models.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: