RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1324738
Critical Limb Ischemia and Its Impact on Patient Health Preferences and Quality of Life—An International Study
Publikationsverlauf
Publikationsdatum:
24. August 2012 (online)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/ija/201203/lookinside/thumbnails/10.1055-s-0032-1324738-1.jpg)
Abstract
Critical limb ischemia (CLI) has a significant impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). Despite cost utility evaluations being required by different authorities, data on patient health preferences and utilities for CLI are scarce. Hence, the objective of this study was to assess the impact of CLI on health preferences and health status of affected patients, and to generate health state utilities. In the International Study, 200 patients with CLI (stages III and IV according to Fontaine scale) were interviewed by trained interviewers with a discrete choice instrument, a standard gamble (SG), and the EuroQol-five dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires (Marten Meesweg, Rotterdam, Netherland). Conjoint analysis showed that a planned amputation (33%) was the most relevant health attribute followed by ambulatory function (25%) and chronic pain (15%). Non-dependence on caregiver impacted on patient health state preference considerably, whereas healing of ulcer/skin lesions had less impact. Preference values obtained from the SG were 0.84, for an amputation subpopulation arriving at 0.70. The EQ-5D index values as well as the EQ-5D visual analog scale for patients with CLI were 0.56. The QoL data of patients with CLI result in decreased QoL and preference values with a planned amputation.
-
References
- 1 Minar E. Critical limb ischaemia. Hamostaseologie 2009; 29 (1) 102-109
- 2 Sprengers RW, Teraa M, Moll FL, de Wit GA, van der Graaf Y, Verhaar MC ; JUVENTAS Study Group; SMART Study Group. Quality of life in patients with no-option critical limb ischemia underlines the need for new effective treatment. J VascSurg 2010; 52 (4) 843-849, 849, e1
- 3 Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997
- 4 Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5 (1) 1-30
- 5 Szende A, Schaefer C. A taxonomy of health utility assessment methods and the role for uncertainty analysis. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7 (2) 147-151
- 6 de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012; 21 (2) 145-172 10.1002/hec.1697
- 7 Orme B “Sample Size Issues for Conjoint Analysis Studies,” in Sawtooth Software Technical Papers, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/samplesz.pdf (Reprinted Version), 1998
- 8 Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A , et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011; 20 (10) 1727-1736
- 9 Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37 (1) 53-72
- 10 Littenberg B, Partilo S, Licata A, Kattan MW. Paper Standard Gamble: the reliability of a paper questionnaire to assess utility. Med Decis Making 2003; 23 (6) 480-488
- 11 Bult JR, Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions. Med Decis Making 1996; 16 (3) 226-233
- 12 Michaels J, Brazier J, Palfreyman S, Shackley P, Slack R. Cost and outcome implications of the organisation of vascular services. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4 (11) i-iv , 1–191
- 13 McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ 2000; 15 (5) 447-470
- 14 Holler D, Claes C, von der Schulenburg JM. Treatment costs and quality of life of patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease—the German perspective. Vasa 2004; 33 (3) 145-153
- 15 Shackley P, Slack R, Michaels J. Vascular patients' preferences for local treatment: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 2001; 6 (3) 151-157
- 16 Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, Lambert M, Lochhead A, Brown H ; Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Validity of Euroqol—a generic health status instrument—in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33 (7) 655-662
- 17 Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003; 12 (6) 599-607
- 18 Lenert LA, Sturley AE. Acceptability of computerized visual analog scale, time trade-off and standard gamble rating methods in patients and the public. Proc AMIA Symp 2001; •••: 364-368
- 19 Szabo SM, Levy AR, Davis C, Holyoake TL, Cortes J. A multinational study of health state preference values associated with chronic myelogenous leukemia. Value Health 2010; 13 (1) 103-111
- 20 Lipscomb J, Drummond M, Fryback D, Gold M, Revicki D. Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value Health 2009; 12 (Suppl. 01) S18-S26
- 21 Abellán-Perpiñán JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Méndez-Martínez I, Badía-Llach X. Towards a better QALY model. Health Econ 2006; 15 (7) 665-676
- 22 Fitzpatrick E, Coyle DE, Durieux-Smith A, Graham ID, Angus DE, Gaboury I. Parents' preferences for services for children with hearing loss: a conjoint analysis study. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (6) 842-849
- 23 Waltzman JT, Scholz T, Evans GR. What patients look for when choosing a plastic surgeon: an assessment of patient preference by conjoint analysis. Ann Plast Surg 2011; 66 (6) 643-647
- 24 Bederman SS, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, McIsaac WJ, Coyte PC, Wright JG. In the eye of the beholder: preferences of patients, family physicians, and surgeons for lumbar spinal surgery. Spine 2010; 35 (1) 108-115
- 25 Hong SH, Liu J, Wang J, Brown L, White-Means S. Conjoint analysis of patient preferences on Medicare medication therapy management. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2011; 51 (3) 378-387
- 26 Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28 (9) 711-722