128
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cuestiones controvertidas en evaluación económica (II): medidas de resultado en salud de las intervenciones sanitarias Translated title: Controversial Issues in Economic Evaluation (II): health Outcomes of Health Care Interventions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          En este segundo artículo, de una serie de tres, debatiremos, empleando la técnica Metaplan, sobre cuestiones controvertidas de las medidas de resultado en salud en la evaluación económica de intervenciones sanitarias (EEIS). Las cuatro áreas de debate se centraron en: elección de las medidas de resultado en salud: en abstracto ninguna medida es superior a otra. Extrapolación y transferibilidad de las medidas de resultado en salud: los resultados de una EEIS de un país no deberían ser asumidos en otro sin realizar ciertos ajustes de distinto tipo. Instrumentos adecuados para medir la calidad de vida en España: se apuntó el EQ-5D como conveniente debido a su extendido uso internacional. Y comparaciones indirectas: la combinación de ambas comparaciones, directas e indirectas, sería recomendable si la prueba para las estimaciones indirectas fue consistente y estaba validada. Finalmente, se proponen líneas de investigación para tratar de superar las discrepancias identificadas en cada una de estas áreas, entre las cuáles se encuentran: la realización de estudios de correlación entre puntuaciones de instrumentos específicos y genéricos de medición de calidad de vida, actualizar o crear una base de datos de evaluaciones económicas realizadas en España, la estimación de los conjuntos de utilidades de la población española para instrumentos genéricos y específicos preexistentes o bien, establecer una manera común de mostrar los resultados de un meta-análisis en red.

          Translated abstract

          In this second article of a series of three, we will discuss using the Metaplan technique on controversial issues of health outcomes in economic evaluation of health care interventions. The four-discussion areas focus on: choice of health outcomes measures, where any outcome measure is superior to another; extrapolation and transferability of health outcomes measures, which should not be assumed the results of an EEIS of one country to another without making certain adjustments; appropriate instruments to measure quality of life in Spain, where the EQ-5D was indicated as convenient due to its widespread international use; and, indirect comparisons, where the combination of both comparisons, direct and indirect, it would be advisable if the test for indirect estimates is consistent and has been validated. Finally, research lines to try to overcome the identified discrepancies were identified in each of these areas, some of those are: doing studies of correlation between scores of specific and generic instruments measuring quality of life; update or create a database of economic evaluations in Spain; estimating utilities for the Spanish population by existing generic and specific instruments; or, establish a common way to show the results of a meta-analysis network.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Results from a six-country study.

          The EQ-5D questionnaire is a widely used generic instrument for describing and valuing health that was developed by the EuroQol Group. A primary objective of the EuroQol Group is the investigation of values for health states in the general population in different countries. As part of the EuroQol enterprise 11 population surveys were carried out in six Western European countries (Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK) to value health states as defined by the EQ-5D using a standardised visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS). This contribution reports how a European set of general population preference weights was derived from the data collected in the 11 valuation studies. The scores from this set of preference weights can be applied to generate a VAS-based weighted health status index for all the potential 243 EQ-5D health states for use in multi-national studies. To estimate the preference weights a multi-level regression analysis was performed on 82,910 valuations of 44 EQ-5D health states elicited from 6,870 respondents. Stable and plausible solutions were found for the model parameters. The R(2) value was 75%. The analysis showed that the major source of variance, apart from 'random error', was variance between individuals (28.3% of the total residual variance). These results suggest that VAS values for EQ-5D health states in six Western European countries can be described by a common model.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

            Conventional meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results for efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acute mania. We did a multiple-treatments meta-analysis, which accounted for both direct and indirect comparisons, to assess the effects of all antimanic drugs. We systematically reviewed 68 randomised controlled trials (16,073 participants) from Jan 1, 1980, to Nov 25, 2010, which compared any of the following pharmacological drugs at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of acute mania in adults: aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, valproate, gabapentin, haloperidol, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, topiramate, and ziprasidone. The main outcomes were the mean change on mania rating scales and the number of patients who dropped out of the allocated treatment at 3 weeks. Analysis was done by intention to treat. Haloperidol (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·56 [95% CI -0·69 to -0·43]), risperidone (-0·50 [-0·63 to -0·38), olanzapine (-0·43 [-0·54 to -0·32], lithium (-0·37 [-0·63 to -0·11]), quetiapine (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), aripiprazole (-0·37 [-0·51 to -0·23]), carbamazepine (-0·36 [-0·60 to -0·11], asenapine (-0·30 [-0·53 to -0·07]), valproate (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·04]), and ziprasidone (-0·20 [-0·37 to -0·03]) were significantly more effective than placebo, whereas gabapentin, lamotrigine, and topiramate were not. Haloperidol had the highest number of significant differences and was significantly more effective than lithium (SMD -0·19 [95% CI -0·36 to -0·01]), quetiapine (-0·19 [-0·37 to 0·01]), aripiprazole (-0·19 [-0·36 to -0·02]), carbamazepine (-0·20 [-0·36 to -0·01]), asenapine (-0·26 [-0·52 to 0·01]), valproate (-0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), ziprasidone -0·36 [-0·56 to -0·15]), lamotrigine (-0·48 [-0·77 to -0·19]), topiramate (-0·63 [-0·84 to -0·43]), and gabapentin (-0·88 [-1·40 to -0·36]). Risperidone and olanzapine had a very similar profile of comparative efficacy, being more effective than valproate, ziprasidone, lamotrigine, topiramate, and gabapentin. Olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine led to significantly fewer discontinuations than did lithium, lamotrigine, placebo, topiramate, and gabapentin. Overall, antipsychotic drugs were significantly more effective than mood stabilisers. Risperidone, olanzapine, and haloperidol should be considered as among the best of the available options for the treatment of manic episodes. These results should be considered in the development of clinical practice guidelines. None. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.

              To survey the frequency of use of indirect comparisons in systematic reviews and evaluate the methods used in their analysis and interpretation. Also to identify alternative statistical approaches for the analysis of indirect comparisons, to assess the properties of different statistical methods used for performing indirect comparisons and to compare direct and indirect estimates of the same effects within reviews. Electronic databases. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was searched for systematic reviews involving meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported both direct and indirect comparisons, or indirect comparisons alone. A systematic review of MEDLINE and other databases was carried out to identify published methods for analysing indirect comparisons. Study designs were created using data from the International Stroke Trial. Random samples of patients receiving aspirin, heparin or placebo in 16 centres were used to create meta-analyses, with half of the trials comparing aspirin and placebo and half heparin and placebo. Methods for indirect comparisons were used to estimate the contrast between aspirin and heparin. The whole process was repeated 1000 times and the results were compared with direct comparisons and also theoretical results. Further detailed case studies comparing the results from both direct and indirect comparisons of the same effects were undertaken. Of the reviews identified through DARE, 31/327 (9.5%) included indirect comparisons. A further five reviews including indirect comparisons were identified through electronic searching. Few reviews carried out a formal analysis and some based analysis on the naive addition of data from the treatment arms of interest. Few methodological papers were identified. Some valid approaches for aggregate data that could be applied using standard software were found: the adjusted indirect comparison, meta-regression and, for binary data only, multiple logistic regression (fixed effect models only). Simulation studies showed that the naive method is liable to bias and also produces over-precise answers. Several methods provide correct answers if strong but unverifiable assumptions are fulfilled. Four times as many similarly sized trials are needed for the indirect approach to have the same power as directly randomised comparisons. Detailed case studies comparing direct and indirect comparisons of the same effect show considerable statistical discrepancies, but the direction of such discrepancy is unpredictable. Direct evidence from good-quality RCTs should be used wherever possible. Without this evidence, it may be necessary to look for indirect comparisons from RCTs. However, the results may be susceptible to bias. When making indirect comparisons within a systematic review, an adjusted indirect comparison method should ideally be used employing the random effects model. If both direct and indirect comparisons are possible within a review, it is recommended that these be done separately before considering whether to pool data. There is a need to evaluate methods for the analysis of indirect comparisons for continuous data and for empirical research into how different methods of indirect comparison perform in cases where there is a large treatment effect. Further study is needed into when it is appropriate to look at indirect comparisons and when to combine both direct and indirect comparisons. Research into how evidence from indirect comparisons compares to that from non-randomised studies may also be warranted. Investigations using individual patient data from a meta-analysis of several RCTs using different protocols and an evaluation of the impact of choosing different binary effect measures for the inverse variance method would also be useful.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                resp
                Revista Española de Salud Pública
                Rev. Esp. Salud Publica
                Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar social (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                1135-5727
                2173-9110
                April 2015
                : 89
                : 2
                : 125-135
                Affiliations
                [01] Toledo orgnameUniversidad de Castilla La Mancha
                [02] Barcelona orgnameUniversitat Pompeu Fabra
                [03] Barcelona orgnameOblikue Consulting
                [04] Granada orgnameEscuela Andaluza de Salud Pública
                Article
                S1135-57272015000200002 S1135-5727(15)08900200002
                a0a3f062-072e-40c4-8f46-55788e8f3534

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 42, Pages: 11
                Product

                SciELO Public Health


                Consenso,Calidad de vida,Costes,Health Care Economics and Organizations,Evaluación económica de intervenciones sanitarias,Evaluación de resultados,Health outcomes,Bioethics,Costs,Health care costs,Methods,Economic Evaluation of Health Interventions,Resultados en salud,Costos de la atención en salud,Quality of life,Economía y organización de los cuidados de salud,Economics,Outcome Assessment (Health Care),Bioética,Economía

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content399

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors469