Background: The EQ-5D-5L is a generic preference-based questionnaire developed by the EuroQol Group to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 2005. Since its development, it has been increasingly applied in populations with various diseases and has been found to have good reliability and sensitivity. This study aimed to summarize the health utility elicited from EQ-5D-5L for patients with different diseases in cross-sectional studies worldwide.Methods: Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2012, to October 31, 2019. Cross-sectional studies reporting utility values measured with the EQ-5D-5L in patients with any specific disease were eligible. The language was limited to English. Reference lists of the retrieved studies were manually searched to identify more studies that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed with the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist. In addition, meta-analyses were performed for utility values of any specific disease reported in three or more studies.Results: In total, 9,400 records were identified, and 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. In the included studies, 50 different diseases and 98,085 patients were analyzed. Thirty-five studies involving seven different diseases were included in meta-analyses. The health utility ranged from 0.31 to 0.99 for diabetes mellitus [meta-analysis random-effect model (REM): 0.83, (95% CI = 0.77–0.90); fixed-effect model (FEM): 0.93 (95% CI = 0.93–0.93)]; from 0.62 to 0.90 for neoplasms [REM: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.68–0.82); FEM: 0.80 (95% CI = 0.78–0.81)]; from 0.56 to 0.85 for cardiovascular disease [REM: 0.77 (95% CI = 0.75–0.79); FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75–0.76)]; from 0.31 to 0.78 for multiple sclerosis [REM: 0.56 (95% CI = 0.47–0.66); FEM: 0.67 (95% CI = 0.66–0.68)]; from 0.68 to 0.79 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [REM: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.71–0.80); FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75–0.77)] from 0.65 to 0.90 for HIV infection [REM: 0.84 (95% CI = 0.80–0.88); FEM: 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80–0.82)]; from 0.37 to 0.89 for chronic kidney disease [REM: 0.70 (95% CI = 0.48–0.92; FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.74–0.78)].Conclusions: EQ-5D-5L is one of the most widely used preference-based measures of HRQoL in patients with different diseases worldwide. The variation of utility values for the same disease was influenced by the characteristics of patients, the living environment, and the EQ-5D-5L value set.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42020158694.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL) vs. palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL) and fulvestrant monotherapy (FUL) as second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the MONARCH 2 trial, MONALEESA-3 trial, and PALOMA-3 trial. Parametric survival models were used for four treatments to explore the long-term effect. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. Sensitivity analyses including one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were performed to observe model stability.Results: In the PS model, compared with PAL + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.44 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $100,696 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $229,039/QALY. Compared with RIB + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.03 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $518 for an ICUR of $19,314/QALY. Compared with FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.68 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $260,584 for ICUR of $381,450/QALY. From the PS model, the ICUR was $270,576 /QALY (ABE + FUL vs. PAL + FUL), dominated (ABE + FUL vs. RIB + FUL) and $404,493/QALY (ABE + FUL vs. FUL) in scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0% and the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL and RIB + FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0.2, 0.6, and 7.3%.Conclusions: The findings from the present analysis suggest that ABE + FUL might be cost-effective compared with RIB + FUL and not cost-effective compared with PAL + FUL and FUL for second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.