A systematic review of utility values for chemotherapy-related adverse events

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 277-288

  Shabaruddin, Fatiha H ^a   Chen, Li Chia ^b   Elliott, Rachel A ^b   Payne, Katherine ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CAPECITABINE PLUS OXALIPLATIN; DOCETAXEL; FLUOROURACIL; FOLINIC ACID; NAVELBINE; OXALIPLATIN; PACLITAXEL;

ADJUVANT THERAPY; ADVANCED CANCER; ALOPECIA; ANEMIA; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER THERAPY; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CHEMOTHERAPY INDUCED NAUSEA AND VOMITING; CHRONIC LYMPHATIC LEUKEMIA; COLON METASTASIS; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DIARRHEA; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EDEMA; FATIGUE; FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA; FEVER; FLU LIKE SYNDROME; HAIR LOSS; HAND FOOT SYNDROME; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFECTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LUNG CANCER; LUNG METASTASIS; LUNG NON SMALL CELL CANCER; METASTATIC MELANOMA; NAUSEA; NEUROPATHY; OTOTOXICITY; OVARY CANCER; PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY; PNEUMONIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RASH; REVIEW; SKIN MANIFESTATION; STANDARD; STOMATITIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VIGNETTE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; VOMITING;

EID: 84876900923     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0033-x     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Chanan-Khan AAA. Immunomodulating drugs for the treatment of cancer. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
2. Riedl MA, Casillas AM. Adverse drug reactions: types and treatment options. Am Fam Phys. 2003;68(9):1781-90. (Pubitemid 37385772)
3. National Cancer Institute. NCI Thesaurus Adverse Event (Code C41331). Bethesda: NCI; 2011. http://nciterms.nci.nih.gov/ncitbrowser/pages/concept- details.jsf?dictionary=NCI%20Thesaurus&code=C41331&type=properties. Accessed 7 Apr 2011.
4. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Common Toxicity Criteria. Version 4.0. Bethesda: NCI; 2010. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic-applications/ctc. htm#ctc-40. Accessed 29 Nov 2011.
5. Martin M, Lluch A, Segui MA, Ruiz A, Ramos M, Adrover E, et al. Toxicity and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC) or 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC): impact of adding primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to the TAC regimen. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(8):1205-12. (Pubitemid 44288210)
6. O'Brien MER, Borthwick A, Rigg A, Leary A, Assersohn L, Last K, et al. Mortality within 30 days of chemotherapy: a clinical governance benchmarking issue for oncology patients. Brit J Cancer. 2006;95(12):1632-6. (Pubitemid 44950787)
7. Lucarelli C, Nicholson S. A quality-adjusted price index for colorectal cancer drugs [NBER Working Paper 15174]. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2009. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15174.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2013.
8. Tosh JC, Longworth LJ, George E. Utility values in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals. Value Health. 2011;14(1):102-9.
9. Craig D, McDaid C, Fonseca T, Stock C, Duffy S, Woolacott N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? An initial review of current practice. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(62):1-171, 7-181, iii.
10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/ media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2013.
11. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(2):151-65. (Pubitemid 30148812)
12. Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A. Adverse effects. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2 (updated September 2009). Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009.
13. Best JH, Garrison LP, Hollingworth W, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL. Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:391-400.
14. Beusterien KM, Szabo SM, Kotapati S, Mukherjee J, Hoos A, Hersey P, et al. Societal preference values for advanced melanoma health states in the United Kingdom and Australia. Brit J Cancer. 2009;101(3):387-9.
15. Beusterien KM, Davies J, Leach M, Meiklejohn D, Grinspan JL, O'Toole A, et al. Population preference values for treatment outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a cross-sectional utility study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(50). http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/50
16. Brown RE, Hutton J, Burrell A. Cost effectiveness of treatment options in advanced breast cancer in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(11):1091-102. (Pubitemid 33135697)
17. Franic DM, Pathak DS, Gafni A. Are health states 'timeless'? A case study of an acute condition: post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(1):69-82. (Pubitemid 36193626)
18. Grunberg SM, Srivastava A, Grunberg KJ, Weeks J. Intensity of chemotherapy-induced emesis and overall survival as determinants of a global utility score. Support Care Cancer. 2002;10(8):624-9. (Pubitemid 36056261)
19. Grunberg SM, Weeks J, Magnan WF, Herndon J, Naughton ML, Blackwell KL, et al. Determination of utility scores for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting - CALGB 309801. J Support Oncol. 2009;7(5):W17-22.
20. Havrilesky LJ, Broadwater G, Davis DM, Nolte KC, Barnett JC, Myers ER, et al. Determination of quality of life-related utilities for health states relevant to ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(2):216-20.
21. Hess LM, Malone DC, Reed PG, Skrepnek G, Weihs K. Preferences of patients and oncologists for advanced ovarian cancer treatment-related health states. Health Outcomes Res Med. 2010;1(1):51-9.
22. Hutton J, Brown R, Borowitz M, Abrams K, Rothman M, Shakespeare A. A new decision model for cost-utility comparisons of chemotherapy in recurrent metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;9(Suppl. 2):8-22. (Pubitemid 26387568)
23. Leung PP, Tannock IF, Oza AM, Puodziunas A, Dranitsaris G. Cost-utility analysis of chemotherapy using paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinorelbine for patients with anthracycline-resistant breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(10):3082-90. (Pubitemid 29470636)
24. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Narewska J, Dewilde S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Brit J Cancer. 2006;95(6):683-90. (Pubitemid 44373482)
25. Lloyd A, De Van Hanswijck JP, Doyle S, Cornes P. Health state utility scores for cancer-related anemia through societal and patient valuations. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1178-85.
26. Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, Bhalla S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6(84). http://www.hqlo.com/content/6/1/84
27. Ness RM, Holmes AM, Klein R, Dittus R. Utility valuations for outcome states of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(6):1650-7. (Pubitemid 29260460)
28. Nguyen CT, Fu AZ, Gilligan TD, Wells BJ, Klein EA, Kattan MW, et al. Defining the optimal treatment for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer using decision analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):119-25.
29. Ossa DF, Briggs A, McIntosh E, Cowell W, Littlewood T, Sculpher M. Recombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia: economic value and health-related quality-of-life assessment using direct utility elicitation and discrete choice experiment methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):223-37. (Pubitemid 46376832)
30. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K. Health utility scores of colorectal cancer based on societal preference in Japan. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1095-103.
31. Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE. An updated systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(6):853-68.
32. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38(6):583-637.
33. Ara R, Wailoo A, Decision Support Unit. The use of health state utility values in decision models [NICE technical support document 12]. London: NICE; 2011. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD12%20Utilities%20in%20modelling%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2013.
34. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Lawrenceville: ISPOR; 2012. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp. Accessed 12 Apr 2012.
35. Prosser LA, Grosse SD, Wittenberg E. Health utility elicitation: is there still a role for direct methods? Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(2):83-6.
36. Brazier J, Rowen D, Decision Support Unit. Alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values [NICE technical support document 11]. London: NICE; 2011. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD11%20Alternatives%20to%20EQ-5D- final.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2013.
37. Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, Miksad RA, Prosser LA. Methods for measuring temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):713-23.
38. Fu AZ, Kattan MW. Utilities should not be multiplied: evidence from the preference-based scores in the United States. Med Care. 2008;46(9):984-90.
39. Drummond M, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Brit Med J. 1996;313:275-83. (Pubitemid 26254740)