ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2024
A time trade-off study in the UK, Canada and the US to estimate utilities associated with the treatment of haemophilia.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHaemophilia is a rare bleeding disorder caused by a deficient or absent clotting factor, leading to frequent bleeding. Multiple intravenous (IV) infusions have been the standard prophylactic treatment; however, newer treatment options involve less frequent subcutaneous (SC) injections. To inform future health economic evaluations, this study applied the time trade-off (TTO) method for estimation of utilities associated with haemophilia treatment for both people with the disease and potential caregivers.
methodsUsing the TTO method, utilities were estimated through two online surveys distributed in the UK, Canada and the US. In survey 1 (S1), adults from the general population aged 18 years and above evaluated health states as if they were living with haemophilia themselves and were receiving treatment for the condition. In survey 2 (S2), adults from the general population with a child under the age of 15 years evaluated health states as if they were treating their child for haemophilia. The surveys assessed the following treatment aspects: frequency of treatment, treatment device and injection site reactions.
resultsIn total, 812, 739 and 703 respondents completed S1 and 712, 594 and 527 completed S2 in the UK, Canada and the US, respectively. In both surveys, the treatment device was associated with the largest impact on utilities for both people with haemophilia and caregivers. Monthly SC injections with a prefilled pen-device were associated with a significant utility gain compared with SC injections with a syringe and IV infusions. In S1, a lower treatment frequency was preferred in all three countries, while in S2, a lower treatment frequency was preferred only in the UK. Avoiding injection site reactions was associated with a significant utility gain in both surveys, but only in the UK and Canada.
conclusionsThe study suggests that the administration of haemophilia treatment in particular has an impact on utilities for both people and caregivers living with the disease. Thus, less complex and time-consuming treatment devices are expected to improve health-related quality of life. This can be further modified additively by less frequent administration. These results can inform future health economic analyses of haemophilia and haemophilia treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.