Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb;39(2):211-229.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00984-6. Epub 2020 Nov 30.

Health State Utilities of Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Literature Review

Gian Luca Di Tanna  1   2 , Michael Urbich  3 , Heidi S Wirtz  4 , Barbara Potrata  5 , Marieke Heisen  5 , Craig Bennison  6 , John Brazier  7 , Gary Globe  4
Affiliations

Health State Utilities of Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Literature Review

Gian Luca Di Tanna et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

Background and objectives: New treatments and interventions are in development to address clinical needs in heart failure. To support decision making on reimbursement, cost-effectiveness analyses are frequently required. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and summarize heart failure utility values for use in economic evaluations.

Methods: Databases were searched for articles published until June 2019 that reported health utility values for patients with heart failure. Publications were reviewed with specific attention to study design; reported values were categorized according to the health states, 'chronic heart failure', 'hospitalized', and 'other acute heart failure'. Interquartile limits (25th percentile 'Q1', 75th percentile 'Q3') were calculated for health states and heart failure subgroups where there were sufficient data.

Results: The systematic literature review identified 161 publications based on data from 142 studies. Utility values for chronic heart failure were reported by 128 publications; 39 publications published values for hospitalized and three for other acute heart failure. There was substantial heterogeneity in the specifics of the study populations, methods of elicitation, and summary statistics, which is reflected in the wide range of utility values reported. EQ-5D was the most used instrument; the interquartile limit for mean EQ-5D values for chronic heart failure was 0.64-0.72.

Conclusions: There is a wealth of published utility values for heart failure to support economic evaluations. Data are heterogenous owing to specificities of the study population and methodology of utility value elicitation and analysis. Choice of value(s) to support economic models must be carefully justified to ensure a robust economic analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Michael Urbich, Gary Globe, and Heidi S. Wirtz are employees of Amgen and hold corporate stock in Amgen. Heidi S. Wirtz also holds corporate stock in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Barvara Potrata, Marieke Heisen, and Craig Bennison report funding from Amgen Inc. to Pharmerit - an OPEN Health company, during the conduct of the study, and employment from Pharmerit - an OPEN Health company, outside the submitted work. Gian Luca Di Tanna was an employee of Amgen until February 2019. He received an honorarium from Amgen during the conduct of the study for providing methodological support. John Brazier has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart displaying the number of publications included as well as the number of publications that were excluded, with reasons. CE cost effectiveness, HF, heart failure, SLR systematic literature review
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean utility scores for chronic heart failure, based on EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life data, according to New York Heart Association (NYHA) class [, –64]. Black circle: Comin-Colet 2013, white circle: Delgardo 2014, black square: Gohler 2009, white square: Grustam 2018, white up-pointing trianlge: Kularatna 2017, white up-pointing trianlge: Marti 2010, black diamond: Marti 2011, white diamond: Yao 2007, grey diamond: Zhu 2017
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collatorators Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1211–1259. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Jr, Drazner MH, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147–e239. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hunt SA, American College of Cardiology. American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(6):e1–e82. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.08.022. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kurmani S, Squire I. Acute heart failure: definition, classification and epidemiology. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2017;14(5):385–392. doi: 10.1007/s11897-017-0351-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Raphael C, Briscoe C, Davies J, Ian Whinnett Z, Manisty C, Sutton R, et al. Limitations of the New York Heart Association functional classification system and self-reported walking distances in chronic heart failure. Heart. 2007;93(4):476–482. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2006.089656. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types