UNASSIGNED: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis.
UNASSIGNED: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons.
UNASSIGNED: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges.
UNASSIGNED: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation).
UNASSIGNED: More randomised controlled trials are necessary.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Cancers of the bowel, ovary or stomach can spread to the lining of the abdomen (‘peritoneal metastases’). Chemotherapy (the use of drugs that aim to kill cancer cells) given by injection or tablets (‘systemic chemotherapy’) is one of the main treatment options. There is uncertainty about whether adding cytoreductive surgery (cytoreductive surgery; an operation to remove the cancer) and ‘hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy’ (warm chemotherapy delivered into the lining of the abdomen during cytoreductive surgery) are beneficial. We reviewed all the information from medical literature published until 14 April 2022, to answer the above uncertainty. We found the following from eight trials, including about 1000 participants. In people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably does not provide any benefits and increases harm compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy, while cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy appears to increase survival compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the best treatment for people with peritoneal metastases from stomach cancer. In women with peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer who require systemic chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery to shrink the cancer to allow surgery (‘advanced ovarian cancer’), hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably increases survival compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy. In people who can withstand a major operation and in whom cancer can be removed, cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, while hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to women with peritoneal metastases from ‘advanced ovarian cancer’. Uncertainty in treatment continues for gastric cancer. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

UNASSIGNED: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient\'s risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.
UNASSIGNED: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
UNASSIGNED: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.
UNASSIGNED: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
UNASSIGNED: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient’s risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.

UNASSIGNED: Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.
UNASSIGNED: We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.
UNASSIGNED: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which puts people at a higher risk of getting bowel cancer, womb cancer and ovarian cancer. Although people with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get these cancers, they are more likely to survive cancer if they get it. People diagnosed with Lynch syndrome get regular testing (surveillance) using a camera to check for bowel cancer or polyps. For womb and ovarian cancer, surveillance may also be an option, but it is less well studied in these cancers. This means that many women are not offered surveillance. Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have risk-reducing surgery when their risk starts rising, if they do not want any more children. We wanted to find out whether surveillance for womb and ovarian cancer would work and would be good value for money. Doctors and patients have said that these are important research questions. We searched for published research on this subject and found a lot of studies, but these studies were often small or not well designed, so they could only tell us a limited amount. Studies did not always measure the things that patients want to know. There was some evidence that people having surveillance might live longer than people not having surveillance, but there was also some evidence that risk-reducing surgery is better than surveillance. Surveillance has detected some cancers which had no symptoms, but there are also cancers diagnosed soon after a surveillance visit where nothing was found. People often find surveillance painful, but experiences vary. Our work shows that surveillance and surgery could be good value for money for many women with Lynch syndrome. We need better research to help patients and doctors decide whether surveillance is right for them.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of individually tailored self-management support, delivered via the artificial intelligence-based selfBACK app, as an add-on to usual care for people with low back pain (LBP).
METHODS: Secondary health-economic analysis of the selfBACK randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 9-month follow-up conducted from a Danish national healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (secondary scenario).
METHODS: Primary care and an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark.
METHODS: A subset of Danish participants in the selfBACK RCT, including 297 adults with LBP randomised to the intervention (n=148) or the control group (n=149).
METHODS: App-delivered evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support as an add-on to usual care compared with usual care alone among people with LBP.
METHODS: Costs of healthcare usage and productivity loss, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol-5L Dimension Questionnaire, meaningful changes in LBP-related disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), costs (healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS: The incremental costs were higher for the selfBACK intervention (mean difference €230 (95% CI -136 to 595)), where ICERs showed an increase in costs of €7336 per QALY gained in the intervention group, and €1302 and €1634 for an additional person with minimal important change on the PSEQ and RMDQ score, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold value of €23250, the selfBACK intervention has a 98% probability of being cost-effective. Analysis of productivity loss was very sensitive, which creates uncertainty about the results from a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity.
CONCLUSIONS: From a healthcare perspective, the selfBACK intervention is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment for people with LBP. However, including productivity loss introduces uncertainty to the results.
BACKGROUND: NCT03798288.

OBJECTIVE: In Malaysia, there is now a dearth of recommendations pertaining to the priority of biologic treatments for the effective management of psoriasis, given the multitude of available therapeutic alternatives. Present analysis reports results of a cost-effectiveness model that determines the most optimal arrangement of biologic treatments, with a particular focus of adding biosimilars to the existing treatment pathway for psoriasis in Malaysia.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of various biologic sequential treatments in a hypothetical cohort of moderate to severe psoriasis patient in Malaysia over a lifetime horizon. The model simulated the progression of patients through three lines of active biologic therapy, before transitioning to best supportive care. Costs and effects were discounted annually at a rate of 3%.
RESULTS: First line secukinumab has produced lowest incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) when compared to first line systemic [ICERs value; US$152,474 (first set analysis) and US$110,572 (second set analysis)] and first line phototherapy [ICERs value; US$147,057 (first set analysis) and US$107,616 (second set analysis)]. However, these values were slightly higher than the Malaysian based threshold of three times gross domestic product per capita, US$104,337. A 40% reduction in the unit costs of reference biologics renders most of the evaluated treatment sequences cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding biosimilar to the current treatment sequence could achieve cost savings ranging from 4.3% to 10.8% without significant loss of effectiveness. Given the significant impact of comorbidities and the resulting decline in quality of life among individuals with psoriasis, it may be justifiable to establish a threshold of up to US$184,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the provision of therapies in the context of Malaysia.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the phase 3 trial, CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827), cilta-cel demonstrated improved efficacy vs. standard of care (SOC; daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone [DPd] or pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [PVd]) with a ≥ complete response (≥CR) rate of 73.1% vs. 21.8%.
UNASSIGNED: A cost-per-responder model was developed to assess the value of cilta-cel and SOC (87% DPd and 13% PVd) based on the CARTITUDE-4 trial data from a US mixed payer perspective (76.7% commercial, 23.3% Medicare). The model was developed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥CR endpoints from CARTITUDE-4 over a period of 25.4 months. Inpatient stays, outpatient visits, drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were included. The base-case model assumed an inpatient setting for each cilta-cel infusion; another scenario included 30% outpatient and 70% inpatient infusions. Costs of managing grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were included. Subsequent therapy costs were incurred after disease progression; terminal care costs were considered upon death events. Outcomes included total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS between cilta-cel and SOC. Costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars.
UNASSIGNED: Total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and total cost per month in PFS were estimated at $704,641, $963,941, and $30,978 for cilta-cel, respectively, and $840,730, $3,856,559, and $42,520 for SOC over the 25.4-month period. Cost drivers included treatment acquisition costs before progression and subsequent treatment costs ($451,318 and $111,637 for cilta-cel; $529,795 and $265,167 for SOC). A scenario analysis in which 30% of patients received an outpatient infusion (assuming the same payer mix) showed a lower cost per complete responder for cilta-cel ($956,523) than those with an infusion in the inpatient setting exclusively.
UNASSIGNED: This analysis estimated that cost per treated patient, cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS for cilta-cel were remarkably lower than for DPd or PVd, highlighting the substantial clinical and economic benefit of cilta-cel for patients with RRMM.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Most Chinese blood centers have implemented mini pool (MP) HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT) together with HBsAg ELISA in routine blood donor screening for HBV infection since 2015, and a few centers upgraded MP to individual donation (ID) NAT screening recently, raising urgent need for cost-benefit analysis of different screening strategies. In an effort to prevent transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) for HBV, cost-benefit analyses of three different screening strategies: HBsAg alone, HBsAg plus MP NAT and HBsAg plus ID NAT were performed in blood donors from southern China where HBV infection was endemic.
METHODS: MP-6 HBV NAT and ID NAT were adopted in parallel to screen blood donors for further comparative analysis. On the basis of screening data and the documented parameters, the number of window period (WP) infection, HBV acute infection, chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB) and occult hepatitis B infection (OBI) was evaluated, and the potential prevented HBV TTIs and benefits of these three strategies were predicted based on cost-benefit analysis by an estimation model.
RESULTS: Of 132,323 donations, the yield rate for HBsAg-/DNA + screened by ID NAT (0.12%) was significantly higher than that by MP NAT (0.058%, P < 0.05). Furthermore, the predicted transfusion-transmitted HBV cases prevented was 1.25 times more by ID NAT compared to MP-6 NAT. The cost-benefit ratio of the universal HBsAg screening, HBsAg plus ID NAT and HBsAg plus MP NAT were 1:58, 1:27 and 1:22, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Universal HBsAg ELISA screening in combination with HBV ID NAT or MP-6 NAT strategies was highly cost effective in China. To further improve blood safety, HBsAg plus HBV DNA ID NAT screening should be considered in HBV endemic regions/countries.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a genetic disease resulting in progressive muscle weakness, loss of ambulation, and cardiorespiratory complications. Direct estimation of health-related quality of life for patients with DMD is challenging, highlighting the need for proxy measures. This study aims to catalog and compare existing published health state utility estimates for DMD and related conditions.
METHODS: Using two search strategies, relevant utilities were extracted from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, including health states, utility estimates, and study and patient characteristics. Analysis One identified health states with comparable utility estimates to a set of published US patient population utility estimates for DMD. A minimal clinically important difference of ± 0.03 was applied to each DMD utility estimate to establish a range, and the registry was searched to identify other health states with associated utilities that fell within each range. Analysis Two used pre-defined search terms to identify health states clinically similar to DMD. Mapping was based on the degree of clinical similarity.
RESULTS: Analysis One identified 4,308 unique utilities across 2,322 cost-effectiveness publications. The health states captured a wide range of acute and chronic conditions; 34% of utility records were extrapolated for US populations (n = 1,451); 1% were related to pediatric populations (n = 61). Analysis Two identified 153 utilities with health states clinically similar to DMD. The median utility estimates varied among identified health states. Health states similar to the early non-ambulatory DMD phase exhibited the greatest difference between the median estimate of the sample (0.39) and the existing estimate from published literature (0.21).
CONCLUSIONS: When available estimates are limited, using novel search strategies to identify utilities of clinically similar conditions could be an approach for overcoming the information gap. However, it requires careful evaluation of the utility instruments, tariffs, and raters (proxy or self).