The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A systematic review of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: An analysis of the health-state utilities

A systematic review of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: An analysis of the health-state utilities
A systematic review of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: An analysis of the health-state utilities

PURPOSE: To characterize the techniques used to derive health-state utilities (HSU) in the cost-utility studies (CUS) of ophthalmic drugs.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in Pubmed/Embase until October 2019. CUS evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Therapeutic area, technique to derive HSU and sources of HSU were extracted. It was assessed if the HSU and the other parameters of CUS were collected from the same population. The techniques to derive HSU used in the CUS were compared to the techniques recommended by the country-specific economic evaluation guidelines.

RESULTS: Seventy CUS were included. Forty-three (61.4%) used direct techniques to derive HSU, 19 (27.1%) used indirect, 1 (1.4%) used direct and indirect and the remaining (n = 7; 10.0%) used other or unknown techniques. Twelve (17.1%) CUS collected the HSU and the other parameters from the same population: nine (12.9%) retrieved utility data from experimental studies, two (2.9%) from observational and one (1.4%) from other sources. Forty-eight (68.6%) CUS collected the HSU and the other parameters from different populations: eight (11.4%) retrieved utility data from experimental studies, 33 (47.1%) from observational, one (1.4%) from both experimental and observational and six (8.6%) from other sources. It was not possible to identify the population from whom data were obtained in 10 (14.3%) CUS. Eleven (15.7%) CUS followed the recommendations of guidelines, 21 (30.0%) did not follow and for 38 (54.3%), it was not possible to assess.

CONCLUSION: Choosing different techniques to derive HSU may result in different results, which can preclude the comparison between cost-utility studies.

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Ophthalmology, Pharmaceutical Preparations
0928-6586
325-338
Ribeiro, Inês
2fd1901b-61bd-4ad5-81b3-a3f8145ec144
Batel Marques, Francisco
d4b92633-e7cf-4150-946b-d49d32da1c79
Mendes, Diogo
db5cc219-59f1-42d8-aed1-9e5871209157
Alves, Carlos
a9602cd6-9233-4f9f-9180-dc1026403e6b
Ribeiro, Inês
2fd1901b-61bd-4ad5-81b3-a3f8145ec144
Batel Marques, Francisco
d4b92633-e7cf-4150-946b-d49d32da1c79
Mendes, Diogo
db5cc219-59f1-42d8-aed1-9e5871209157
Alves, Carlos
a9602cd6-9233-4f9f-9180-dc1026403e6b

Ribeiro, Inês, Batel Marques, Francisco, Mendes, Diogo and Alves, Carlos (2020) A systematic review of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: An analysis of the health-state utilities. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 27 (5), 325-338. (doi:10.1080/09286586.2020.1792938).

Record type: Article

Abstract

PURPOSE: To characterize the techniques used to derive health-state utilities (HSU) in the cost-utility studies (CUS) of ophthalmic drugs.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in Pubmed/Embase until October 2019. CUS evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Therapeutic area, technique to derive HSU and sources of HSU were extracted. It was assessed if the HSU and the other parameters of CUS were collected from the same population. The techniques to derive HSU used in the CUS were compared to the techniques recommended by the country-specific economic evaluation guidelines.

RESULTS: Seventy CUS were included. Forty-three (61.4%) used direct techniques to derive HSU, 19 (27.1%) used indirect, 1 (1.4%) used direct and indirect and the remaining (n = 7; 10.0%) used other or unknown techniques. Twelve (17.1%) CUS collected the HSU and the other parameters from the same population: nine (12.9%) retrieved utility data from experimental studies, two (2.9%) from observational and one (1.4%) from other sources. Forty-eight (68.6%) CUS collected the HSU and the other parameters from different populations: eight (11.4%) retrieved utility data from experimental studies, 33 (47.1%) from observational, one (1.4%) from both experimental and observational and six (8.6%) from other sources. It was not possible to identify the population from whom data were obtained in 10 (14.3%) CUS. Eleven (15.7%) CUS followed the recommendations of guidelines, 21 (30.0%) did not follow and for 38 (54.3%), it was not possible to assess.

CONCLUSION: Choosing different techniques to derive HSU may result in different results, which can preclude the comparison between cost-utility studies.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 21 July 2020
Published date: 1 October 2020
Additional Information: © 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Ophthalmology, Pharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 469311
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/469311
ISSN: 0928-6586
PURE UUID: 166f08e8-90d5-4d58-8306-58afd637784d
ORCID for Inês Ribeiro: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8464-4513

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 13 Sep 2022 16:41
Last modified: 11 Sep 2024 02:26

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Inês Ribeiro ORCID iD
Author: Francisco Batel Marques
Author: Diogo Mendes
Author: Carlos Alves

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×