Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Health State Utilities

Weight Change and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The study aimed to conduct a systematic literature search to identify health state utilities for weight change in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to review those values for appropriateness for inclusion in a submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Methods

The search was conducted using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms designed to exhaustively capture health state utility values across a variety of known economic, health technology assessment and peer-reviewed publication databases. The values were then critically reviewed from the perspective of the NICE reference case (2008 methods guide).

Results

The search resulted in a large number of repeat references across databases suggesting good sensitivity. Thirty-three articles were selected for inclusion and subjected to a critical review including their methodological quality, symmetry with the NICE reference case, sample size and country source. This critical review led to a shortlist of nine utility studies, all of which had potential for inclusion in cost-utility models or a meta-analysis.

Conclusions

A relatively large number of utilities have been collected in weight change and T2DM. Many of these utility values are not suitable for inclusion in a NICE submission. A better way of reviewing the methodological quality of utilities is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Williams A. Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985 Aug 3; 291(6491): 326–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(9): 769–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 10]

    Google Scholar 

  4. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, et al. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009 Oct; 18(8): 1115–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009 Apr; 18(3): 313–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brazier J, Papaioannou P, Cantrell A, et al. Identifying and reviewing health state utility values for populating decision models. In: Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al., editors. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: BMJ Books, 2010: 93–105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Beverley C, Ryan A. Quality of life sample search filter [online]. Available from URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/intertasc/qol1.htm [Accessed 2009 Nov 10]

  8. Lloyd A, Wild D, Gallop K, et al. Reimbursement agency requirements for health related quality-of-life data: a case study. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2009 Dec; 9(6): 527–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ 2005 Mar; 14(3): 217–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brennan A, Ara R, Sterz R, et al. Assessment of clinical and economic benefits of weight management with sibutramine in general practice in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2006 Dec; 7(4): 276–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ara R, Brennan A. The cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in non-diabetic obese patients: evidence from four Western countries. Obes Rev 2007 Jul; 8(4): 363–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kolotkin RL, Norquist JM, Crosby RD, et al. One-year health-related quality of life outcomes in weight loss trial participants: comparison of three measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009 Jun 9; 7: 53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kortt MA, Clarke PM. Estimating utility values for health states of overweight and obese individuals using the SF-36. Qual Life Res 2005 Dec; 14(10): 2177–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee AJ, Morgan CL, Morrissey M, et al. Evaluation of the association between the EQ-5D (health-related utility) and body mass index (obesity) in hospital-treated people with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes and with no diagnosed diabetes. Diabet Med 2005 Nov; 22(11): 1482–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Macran S. The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life [discussion paper no. 190]. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  16. Matza LS, Boye KS, Yurgin N, et al. Utilities and disutilities for type 2 diabetes treatment-related attributes. Qual Life Res 2007 Sep; 16(7): 1251–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sach TH, Barton GR, Doherty M, et al. The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life: comparing the EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS and SF-6D. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007 Jan; 31(1): 189–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Soltoft F, Hammer M, Kragh N. The association of body mass index and health-related quality of life in the general population: data from the 2003 Health Survey of England. Qual Life Res 18: 1293–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009 Jul; 339: b2535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Obesity: the prevention, identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in adults and children [clinical guideline no. 43]. London: NICE, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg43 [Accessed 2010 Apr 12]

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ara R, Brennan A. Economic evaluation of sibutramine for the treatment of obesity in adults without other co-morbidities in the UK. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Type 2 diabetes (partially updated by CG87) [clinical guideline no. CG66]. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG66 [Accessed 2012 Sep 13]

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Type 2 diabetes: newer agents (partial update of CG66) [clinical guideline no. CG87]. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/CG87 [Accessed 2012 Sep 13]

    Google Scholar 

  24. Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al. The CORE diabetes model: projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin 2004 Aug; 20 Suppl. 1: S5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsai AG, Wadden TA, Sarwer DB, et al. Metabolic syndrome and health-related quality of life in obese individuals seeking weight reduction. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008 Jan; 16(1): 59–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barnett TE, Chumbler NR, Vogel WB, et al. The cost-utility of a care coordination/home telehealth programme for veterans with diabetes. J Telemed Telecare 2007; 13(6): 318–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown SE, Meltzer DO, Chin MH, et al. Perceptions of quality-of-life effects of treatments for diabetes mellitus in vulnerable and nonvulnerable older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008 Jul; 56(7): 1183–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Currie CJ, McEwan P, Peters JR, et al. The routine collation of health outcomes data from hospital treated subjects in the Health Outcomes Data Repository (HODaR): descriptive analysis from the first 20,000 subjects. Value Health 2005 Sept-Oct; 8(5): 581–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gusi N, Garcia J, Gonzalez-Guerrero J, et al. Cost-utility of a walking programme for moderately depressed, obese, or overweight elderly women in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2008; 8: 231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Neovius M, Narbro K. Cost-effectiveness of pharmacological anti-obesity treatments: a systematic review. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008; 32(12): 1752–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Roux L, Donaldson C, Goldie S, et al. Economic evaluation of weight loss interventions in overweight and obese women. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2006 Jun; 14(6): 1093–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rejeski WJ, Lang W, Neiberg RH, et al. Correlates of health-related quality of life in overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2006 May; 14(5): 870–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dennett SL, Boye KS, Yurgin NR. The impact of body weight on patient utilities with or without type 2 diabetes: a review of the medical literature. Value Health 2008 May–Jun; 11(3): 478–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Matza LS, Yurgin N, Boye KS, et al. Obese versus non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: patient-reported outcomes and utility of weight change. Curr Med Res Opin 2007 Sep; 23(9): 2051–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Groessl EJ, Kaplan RM, Barrett-Connor E, et al. Body mass index and quality of well-being in a community of older adults. Am J Prev Med 2004 Feb; 26(2): 126–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998 Nov; 51(11): 1115–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hakim Z, Wolf A, Garrison LP. Estimating the effect of changes in body mass index on health state preferences. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20(6): 393–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Torrance GW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(11): 1069–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Paisley S, on behalf of the Decision Support Unit. The identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature [NICE DSU technical support document no. 9]. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD9%20HSUV%20values_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 2012 Apr 10]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Roche provided research support and funding for this study. Roche staff were involved in the design of the study, as well as review and approval of the manuscript.

Two of the authors (Lee Moore, Joshua Ray) are employees and shareholders in Roche Products Ltd., the sponsor of this study. Scott Doyle, Andrew Lloyd and Alastair Gray report no conflicts of interest.

The authors would like to thank Professor John Brazier who contributed to the critical analysis of the utility methodology and health technology assessment perspective.

Scott Doyle was the principle reviewer and writer of the manuscript as well as leading on the study design. Andrew Lloyd contributed to the study design including steering group, article reviews, manuscript concept sheet and draft reviews. Lee Moore, Joshua Ray and Alastair Gray contributed to the study concept, reviewed and helped grade the studies included in the tables, contributed to the manuscript concept sheet and reviewed and commented on draft manuscript versions and reviewer comments. Scott Doyle is the guarantor and contributor responsible for the concept and content of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Outcomes, Seacourt Tower, West Way, Oxford, OX2 0JJ, UK

    Scott Doyle &  Andrew Lloyd

  2. Health Economics Research Centre, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Scott Doyle & Alastair Gray

  3. Roche Products Ltd., Welwyn Garden City, UK

    Lee Moore

  4. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland

    Joshua Ray

Authors
  1. Scott Doyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lee Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joshua Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alastair Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Lloyd.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doyle, S., Lloyd, A., Moore, L. et al. A Systematic Review and Critical Assessment of Health State Utilities. PharmacoEconomics 30, 1133–1143 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11599420-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11599420-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation