Search

Patients experiencing financial distress as a side-effect of cancer are not only reported in the United States, but also in third-party payer healthcare systems in Europe. Since validated survey instruments are a prerequisite for robust and comparable results, we aimed to compile and classify available instruments to enable both a better understanding of the underlying construct of financial toxicity and to facilitate further studies that are adjustable to various healthcare systems. We did a systematic literature search on studies that provide data on perceived cancer-related financial distress experienced by adult patients using PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science databases up to 2018. We analyzed all detected instruments, items domains and questions with regard to their wording, scales and the domains of financial distress covered. Among 3298 records screened, 41 publications based on 40 studies matched our inclusion criteria. Based on the analysis of 352 different questions we identified 6 relevant subdomains that represent perceptions of and reactions to experienced financial distress: (i) active financial spending, (ii) use of passive financial resources, (iii) psychosocial responses, (iv) support seeking, (v) coping with care or (vi) coping with ones' lifestyle. We found an inconsistent coverage and use of these domains that makes it difficult to compare and quantify the prevalence of financial distress. Moreover, some existing instruments do not reflect relevant domains for patients in third-party payer systems. There is neither a consistent understanding of the construct of financial burden nor do available instruments cover all relevant aspects of a patients' distress perception. We encourage using the identified six domains to further develop survey instruments and adjust them to different health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European countries more than ever face shifts towards aging societies with accompanying challenges for health and aged care services. Economic evaluation has mainly relied on health measures such as EQ-5D across populations and conditions. We want to know how well the EQ-5D performs in the target population to avoid bias to the disadvantage of older adults and care-dependents. Therefore, we aim to explore differences and similarities of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in comparison to the old-age specific WHOQOL-OLD instrument in a sample of older adults receiving aged care services. We collected data from n = 329 older adults (≥65 years) receiving aged care services in Germany; the majority was at least 80 years and had varying care needs. We assessed instruments' feasibility, test-retest reliability, instruments' association and sensitivity to known-group differences. In terms of feasibility and test-retest reliability both EQ-5D versions performed better than the WHOQOL-OLD. All measures differentiated well between groups based on aspects of general health and care levels. The analysis of relationship between measures indicated that EQ-5D and WHOQOL-OLD assess partially overlapping, but distinct constructs. We found no clear evidence of superiority of either EQ-5D version over the other. The EQ-5D-5L performed better in terms of test-retest reliability and stronger correlations with WHOQOL-OLD facets. We conclude that using the WHOQOL-OLD alongside EQ-5D in this sample added further information on different aspects of quality of life., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: OM and WG are members of the EuroQol Group and receive or have received research grants from the EuroQol Research Foundation. The views of the authors expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Group. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Marten, Greiner. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objective: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data., Methods: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions., Results: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences., Conclusion: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Long-term management of chronic conditions, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), require frequent interactions with the healthcare systems. The multinational EUropean Patient Survey in Atrial Fibrillation (EUPS-AF) was conducted to investigate patient satisfaction with AF management in different of five European healthcare systems at a time of changing treatment paradigms for stroke prophylaxis, prior to the advent of newer oral anticoagulants., Methods: Adults (>18 years) were recruited at random from the total populations of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK using a randomized telephone dialling system. At least 300 respondents per country reporting to have a diagnosis of AF or receiving oral anticoagulation therapy for suspected AF or to have a heart rhythm disturbance completed a structured telephone interview., Results: Most respondents were satisfied with their treatment for AF over the previous 12 months, with 85.5% (n = 1289) rating their care as good or better. Suboptimal clinical practices, however, were identified in several key areas. Coordination of primary and secondary care and a lack of patient engagement and support were particular issues, especially for those patients likely to have extensive contact with their healthcare system., Conclusions: In the context of Europe-wide guidelines for management of AF, most patients with AF were satisfied with their care, but for a greater proportion of patients, some aspects are unsatisfactory. Patient-centred surveys, such as the EUPS-AF, are crucial for understanding the factors that contribute to patient satisfaction and compliance with long-term treatment for chronic conditions.

Purpose: To examine the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the newly developed EQ-5D-Y., Methods: The EQ-5D-Y was administered in population samples of children and adolescents in Germany, Italy, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Percentages of missing values and reported problems were calculated. Test-retest reliability was determined. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients with other generic measures of HRQOL were calculated. Known groups' validity was examined by comparing groups with a priori expected differences in HRQOL., Results: Between 91 and 100% of the respondents provided valid scorings. Sweden had the lowest proportion of reported problems (1-24.9% across EQ-5D-Y dimensions), with the highest proportions in South Africa (2.8-47.3%) and Italy (4.3-39.0%). Percentages of agreement in test-retest reliability ranged between 69.8 and 99.7% in the EQ-5D-Y dimensions; Kappa coefficients were up to 0.67. Correlation coefficients with other measures of self-rated health indicated convergent validity (up to r = -0.56). Differences between groups classified according to presence of chronic conditions, self-rated overall health and psychological problems provided preliminary evidence of known groups' validity., Conclusions: Results provide preliminary evidence of the instrument's feasibility, reliability and validity. Further study is required in clinical samples and for possible future applications in economic analyses.

Objective: To investigate the cost-utility of eprosartan versus enalapril (primary prevention) and versus nitrendipine (secondary prevention) on the basis of head-to-head evidence from randomized controlled trials., Methods: The HEALTH model (Health Economic Assessment of Life with Teveten for Hypertension) is an object-oriented probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model. It combines a Framingham-based risk calculation with a systolic blood pressure approach to estimate the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events based on recent meta-analyses. In secondary prevention, an additional risk reduction is modeled for eprosartan according to the results of the MOSES study ("Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke--Eprosartan Compared to Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention"). Costs and utilities were derived from published estimates considering European country-specific health-care payer perspectives., Results: Comparing eprosartan to enalapril in a primary prevention setting the mean costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were highest in Germany (Euro 24,036) followed by Belgium (Euro 17,863), the UK (Euro 16,364), Norway (Euro 13,834), Sweden (Euro 11,691) and Spain (Euro 7918). In a secondary prevention setting (eprosartan vs. nitrendipine) the highest costs per QALY gained have been observed in Germany (Euro 9136) followed by the UK (Euro 6008), Norway (Euro 1695), Sweden (Euro 907), Spain (Euro -2054) and Belgium (Euro -5767)., Conclusions: Considering a Euro 30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained, eprosartan is cost-effective as compared to enalapril in primary prevention (patients >or=50 years old and a systolic blood pressure >or=160 mm Hg) and cost-effective as compared to nitrendipine in secondary prevention (all investigated patients).

The aim of this methodological paper is to summarize evidence on how to implement cost-benefit assessment according to the new German legislative framework (Competition Enhancement Act). Given the complexity of existing health policy frameworks within industrialised countries in adapting health economics in their respective regulatory scheme, no clear international scientific consensus on which health economic methods should be chosen for assessment can be determined. Nevertheless, a broad consensus on the internal properties of methods itself can be found. Based on these common international standards in methodology, this work provides a minimum catalogue of methods and criteria that meet legal and local German requirements with regard to specific factors of its health care system. Aside from categorising clearly defined standards (e.g., study forms, cost and benefit categories) the suggested catalogue specifies some intensively debated areas in Germany (e.g., the QALY, modelling, the perspective used in the assessment). After the proposition of certain methods the paper leads to a first recommendation of a detailed assessment-process itself specific for the German way in implementing cost-benefit ratios within regulatory decision making in Germany.

For a comprehensive health technology assessment (HTA), health economic studies are analysed as well as medical studies. Significance and effects of HTA are rather different in European countries. In Germany HTA is conducted by two official agencies: DIMDI and IQWiG. While DIMDI requires health economic assessments, IQWiG is prohibited from considering economic aspects by law (pure assessment of benefits). For the health economic assessment in HTA reports mainly secondary scientific evidence is exploited, i.e. primarily cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses. The study perspective, the study alternatives and the modelling methods are of great importance for the evaluation and have to be justified in depth. The cost effectiveness ratio and the budget impact are the most important results of the health economic assessment, which is the basis for the appraisal by the health care authorities. For this decision medical, utilitarian or other aspects like the avoidance of unwanted distribution effects are considered. On the other hand often only a few studies are available for the decision making when the appraisal has to be done. This problem might be less relevant in the near future as the number of HTAs and the number of health economic evaluations increases.

Economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals are increasingly being conducted in conjunction with randomized phase III clinical trials to meet the demand for pharmacoeconomic data when new products are launched. While the need for such data is often global, the trials in which relevant information may be collected are often conducted in only one or a limited number of countries. A critical issue is how data from pivotal clinical trials in one setting can serve as the basis for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in others. We address this issue and report on four economic evaluations that we undertook in conjunction with a recent U.S. phase III clinical trial of recombinant human deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase), which is used to improve pulmonary function in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The objective of these evaluations was to estimate the potential impact of rhDNase therapy in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom on the direct costs of medical care for the treatment of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in patients with CF. Analyses of economic impact were undertaken both with and without adjustment for differences in practice patterns between the United States and the countries of interest. Our findings suggest that rhDNase therapy may reduce the cost of RTI-related care by between US$600 and US$1,100 over a 24-week period; the cost of rhDNase is not included in these figures, as a price was unavailable when our analyses were undertaken. Despite methodologic challenges, economic evaluations that meet the information needs of decision makers in diverse countries can nonetheless be undertaken in conjunction with phase III clinical trials.