Health utility scores and disability weights of liver cancer and related diseases in China: a systematic review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

HUANG Jiawen ^1,2 , ZHU Juan ² , HUANG Huiyao ² , WANG Yuting ³ , BAI Fangzhou ² , HAN Youli ⁴ , QU Chunfeng ³ , DAI Min ² , MAO Ayan ¹ ,  SHI Jufang ²

1. Institution of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100020, P.R.China;
2. Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, P.R.China;
3. Department of Immunology/State Key Lab of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, P.R.China;
4. School of Health Management and Education, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

SHI Jufang, Email: shijf@cicams.ac.cn

Keywords：

Liver cancer; Related diseases; Health utility score; Disability weights; Systematic review; China

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201802029

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

ObjectivesTo systematically review the health utility scores and disability weights of liver cancer and related diseases in China.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect the studies of health utility scores and disability weights of liver cancer and related diseases in China from inception to November, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 12.0 software.ResultsA total of 9 studies were included which covered 10 related diseases, among which chronic hepatitis B, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis and liver cancer were the mostly reported. The overall quality was adequate, and EQ-5D was the most common tool in these studies. Results of meta-analysis showed that healthy utility scores of the four common diseases were 0.789 (0.735, 0.843), 0.734 (0.693, 0.776), 0.647 (0.627, 0.666) and 0.636 (0.508, 0.765), respectively. Measures from EQ-5D were 0.825 (0.762, 0.868), 0.761 (0.731, 0.791), 0.643 (0.620, 0.666) and 0.620 (0.473, 0.766), respectively. In addition, the corresponding median (range) utility scores of the four diseases were found to be 0.758 (0.520–0.950), 0.716 (0.570–0.900), 0.538 (0.260–0.662) and 0.541(0.310–0.720). Only one disability weight study was concluded (0.360–0.900 reported for liver cancer).ConclusionIn Chinese population, current evidences on health utility of liver cancer and related diseases are limited, particularly data on disability weights. Utility values from meta-analysis seems more optimistic and centralized than those from descriptive analysis. Different survey tools yield varying outcomes, and attentions should be addressed to their application. The decrease of heath utility scores with the severity of liver disease suggests that early prevention, early diagnosis and treatment can save more years of life with enhanced quality.

Citation： HUANG Jiawen, ZHU Juan, HUANG Huiyao, WANG Yuting, BAI Fangzhou, HAN Youli, QU Chunfeng, DAI Min, MAO Ayan, SHI Jufang. Health utility scores and disability weights of liver cancer and related diseases in China: a systematic review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(5): 410-417. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201802029 Copy

1.	冉建朝, 王乐, 张玥, 等. 中国人群肝癌所致DALYs疾病负担: 1990 ~ 2016年长期分析及预测. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(5): 401-409.
2.	张洁, 钱序, 陈英耀. 疾病负担研究进展. 中国卫生经济, 2005, 24(5): 69-71.
3.	WHO. Disability and health, 2016. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/.
4.	Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol, 2017, 3(4): 524-548.
5.	刘国恩, 主编. 中国药物经济学评价指南及导读. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015: 27-28.
6.	Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet, 2018, 391(10125): 1023-1075.
7.	石菊芳, 赵琨, 曲春枫, 等. 肝癌筛查相关卫生技术评估. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(5): in press.
8.	中华人民共和国卫生和计划生育委员会医政医管局. 原发性肝癌诊疗规范. 中华消化外科杂志, 2017, 16(7): 705-720.
9.	The Equator Network. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/.
10.	Rostom A, Dub C, Cranney A, et al. Celiac disease. Evid Rep Technol Assess, 2004, 8(5): 483-486.
11.	曾宪涛, 刘慧, 陈曦, 等. Meta分析系列之四: 观察性研究的质量评价工具. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2012, 4(4): 297-299.
12.	Higgins JPT, Sally G. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.1.0). Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
13.	Pwu RF, Chan KA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon-alpha therapy in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc, 2002, 101(9): 632-641.
14.	杨敬, 沈清, 雷通海, 等. 浙江省主要恶性肿瘤失能权重评定. 中国公共卫生, 2007, 23(8): 931-933.
15.	Levy AR, Kowdley KV, Iloeje U, et al. The impact of chronic hepatitis B on quality of life: a multinational study of utilities from infected and uninfected persons. Value Health, 2008, 11(3): 527-538.
16.	Lam ET, Lam CL, Lai CL, et al. Health-related quality of life of Southern Chinese with chronic hepatitis B infection. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2009, 7(1): 1-10.
17.	Che YH, You J, Chongsuvivatwong V, et al. Dynamics and liver disease specific aspects of quality of life among patients with chronic liver disease in Yunnan, China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2014, 15(12): 4765-4771.
18.	Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res, 2014, 23(8): 2355-2363.
19.	Zhuang G, Zhang M, Liu Y, et al. Significant impairment of health-related quality of life in mainland Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B: a cross-sectional survey with pair-matched healthy controls. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2014, 12(1): 101.
20.	肖敏, 王怀, 张卫, 等. 北京市成人高危人群乙肝疫苗免疫策略成本效果分析. 中华疾病控制杂志, 2015, 19(7): 730-734.
21.	余倩, 范小玲, 张曦, 等. 成人乙型肝炎患者不同转归状态的生命质量效用权重评估. 中国卫生经济, 2016, 35(6): 68-70.
22.	中华医学会肝病学分会. 慢性乙型肝炎防治指南. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2015, 23(12): 321-340.
23.	林莹. 我国现行乙肝免疫预防策略的成本效果分析及可支付性评价. 广州: 广东药科大学, 2016.
24.	Shi JF, Huang HY, Guo LW, et al. Quality-of-life and health utility scores for common cancers in China: a multicentre cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 2016, 388(Suppl 1): S29.

1. 冉建朝, 王乐, 张玥, 等. 中国人群肝癌所致DALYs疾病负担: 1990 ~ 2016年长期分析及预测. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(5): 401-409.
2. 张洁, 钱序, 陈英耀. 疾病负担研究进展. 中国卫生经济, 2005, 24(5): 69-71.
3. WHO. Disability and health, 2016. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/.
4. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol, 2017, 3(4): 524-548.
5. 刘国恩, 主编. 中国药物经济学评价指南及导读. 北京: 科学出版社, 2015: 27-28.
6. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet, 2018, 391(10125): 1023-1075.
7. 石菊芳, 赵琨, 曲春枫, 等. 肝癌筛查相关卫生技术评估. 中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(5): in press.
8. 中华人民共和国卫生和计划生育委员会医政医管局. 原发性肝癌诊疗规范. 中华消化外科杂志, 2017, 16(7): 705-720.
9. The Equator Network. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/.
10. Rostom A, Dub C, Cranney A, et al. Celiac disease. Evid Rep Technol Assess, 2004, 8(5): 483-486.
11. 曾宪涛, 刘慧, 陈曦, 等. Meta分析系列之四: 观察性研究的质量评价工具. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2012, 4(4): 297-299.
12. Higgins JPT, Sally G. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.1.0). Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
13. Pwu RF, Chan KA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon-alpha therapy in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc, 2002, 101(9): 632-641.
14. 杨敬, 沈清, 雷通海, 等. 浙江省主要恶性肿瘤失能权重评定. 中国公共卫生, 2007, 23(8): 931-933.
15. Levy AR, Kowdley KV, Iloeje U, et al. The impact of chronic hepatitis B on quality of life: a multinational study of utilities from infected and uninfected persons. Value Health, 2008, 11(3): 527-538.
16. Lam ET, Lam CL, Lai CL, et al. Health-related quality of life of Southern Chinese with chronic hepatitis B infection. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2009, 7(1): 1-10.
17. Che YH, You J, Chongsuvivatwong V, et al. Dynamics and liver disease specific aspects of quality of life among patients with chronic liver disease in Yunnan, China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2014, 15(12): 4765-4771.
18. Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res, 2014, 23(8): 2355-2363.
19. Zhuang G, Zhang M, Liu Y, et al. Significant impairment of health-related quality of life in mainland Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B: a cross-sectional survey with pair-matched healthy controls. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2014, 12(1): 101.
20. 肖敏, 王怀, 张卫, 等. 北京市成人高危人群乙肝疫苗免疫策略成本效果分析. 中华疾病控制杂志, 2015, 19(7): 730-734.
21. 余倩, 范小玲, 张曦, 等. 成人乙型肝炎患者不同转归状态的生命质量效用权重评估. 中国卫生经济, 2016, 35(6): 68-70.
22. 中华医学会肝病学分会. 慢性乙型肝炎防治指南. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2015, 23(12): 321-340.
23. 林莹. 我国现行乙肝免疫预防策略的成本效果分析及可支付性评价. 广州: 广东药科大学, 2016.
24. Shi JF, Huang HY, Guo LW, et al. Quality-of-life and health utility scores for common cancers in China: a multicentre cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 2016, 388(Suppl 1): S29.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Health utility scores and disability weights of liver cancer and related diseases in China: a systematic review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content