%0 Systematic Review
%T International Systematic Review of Utility Values Associated with Cardiovascular Disease and Reflections on Selecting Evidence for a UK Decision-Analytic Model.
%A Hainsworth R
%A Thompson AJ
%A Guthrie B
%A Payne K
%A Rogers G
%J Med Decis Making
%V 44
%N 2
%D 2024 Feb 4
%M 38174427
%F 2.749
%R 10.1177/0272989X231214782
%X <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>Evaluating interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires estimates of its effect on utility. We aimed to 1) systematically review utility estimates for CVDs published since 2013 and 2) critically appraise UK-relevant estimates and calculate corresponding baseline utility multipliers.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We searched MEDLINE and Embase (April 22, 2021) using CVD and utility terms. We screened results for primary studies reporting utility distributions for people with experience of heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease, stable angina, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or unstable angina. We extracted characteristics from studies included. For UK estimates based on the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) measure, we assessed risk of bias and applicability to a decision-analytic model, pooled arms/time points as appropriate, and estimated baseline utility multipliers using predicted utility for age- and sex- matched populations without CVD. We sought utility sources from directly applicable studies with low risk of bias, prioritizing plausibility of severity ordering in our base-case model and highest population ascertainment in a sensitivity analysis.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Most of the 403 studies identified used EQ-5D (n = 217) and most assessed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development populations (n = 262), although measures and countries varied widely. UK studies using EQ-5D (n = 29) produced very heterogeneous baseline utility multipliers for each type of CVD, precluding meta-analysis and implying different possible severity orderings. We could find sources that provided a plausible ordering of utilities while adequately representing health states.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>We cataloged international CVD utility estimates and calculated UK-relevant baseline utility multipliers. Modelers should consider unreported sources of heterogeneity, such as population differences, when selecting utility evidence from reviews.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Published systematic reviews have summarized estimates of utility associated with cardiovascular disease published up to 2013.We 1) reviewed utility estimates for 7 types of cardiovascular disease published since 2013, 2) critically appraised UK-relevant studies, and 3) estimated the effect of each cardiovascular disease on baseline utility.Our review 1) recommends a consistent and reliable set of baseline utility multipliers for 7 types of cardiovascular disease and 2) provides systematically identified reference information for researchers seeking utility evidence for their own context.