Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 15;40(Suppl 1):39–67. doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01115-5

Table 3.

Characteristics of studies identified in the systematic literature review

Publication Study design Study location Method of elicitation Valuation methoda Population for whom utility is being measured Respondent Sample size and patient demographics
Belter et al. [51] Survey Global HUI3 NR Patients with SMA

Patients with SMA (aged ≥ 18 years)

Proxy (parent/caregiver) for pts aged < 18 years

Responses represented n = 478 patients with SMA:

Type 1 (n = 121), Type 2 (n = 225), Type 3 (n = 132)

Female (n = 284), male (n = 194)

Mean ± SD age 17.1 ± 16.8 years

Binz et al. [52] Prospective longitudinal study Germany EQ-5D-5L Value set for EQ-5D-5L based on preferences of German population [92] Adult patients with SMA Adult patients with SMA (aged ≥ 18 years) n = 18 patients with SMA: Type 2 (n = 6), Type 3 (n = 11), Type 4 (n = 1)
Chambers et al. [53] Cross-sectional study Australia EQ-5D-Y EQ-5D-3L Australian value sets used as a proxy as EQ-5D-Y value set unavailable Patients with Type 1, 2 or 3 SMA Patients with SMA (aged 0–21 years) and caregiver pairs

n = 40 patientt–caregiver pairs

Children with SMA: Type 1 (n = 4), Type 2 (n = 26), Type 3 (n = 10).

Female (n = 21), male (n = 19).

Mean age 9.5 years (range 1–23)

Lloyd et al. [46] Cross-sectional survey UK Clinical experts assessed Types 1 and 2 SMA case studies using EQ-5D-Y and PedsQL-NMM (baseline states only) EQ-5D-Y data were scored using UK EQ-5D-3L tariff Patients with SMA Clinical experts in SMA n = 5. No additional information on patient demographics
Lo et al. [57] Survey UK

DCE

Caregiver HRQoL and disutilities: Preference-based measure: EQ-5D-5L (caregiver HRQoL and disutilities)

DCE choice data analysed by a conditional logit model

EQ-5D-5L utility scores were calculated using EQ-5D-5L crosswalk index values [64]

Patients with Type 2 SMA and non-ambulatory Type 3 SMA and their caregivers

Adult patients with SMA and caregivers as proxy for paediatric patients with SMA

Caregiver HRQoL: self-reporting by caregivers

Patients (n = 84), caregivers (n = 83)

Sex:

Adult patient survey: female (n = 61), male (n = 23)

Sex of patient of caregiver survey respondents: female (n = 8), male (n = 75)

Mean ± SD age:

Adult patient survey respondents: 33.9 ± 11.5 years

Age of patient of caregiver survey respondents: 8.4 ± 3.4 years

Lo et al. [56] Survey UK DCE UK societal preferences (trade-off) Patients with SMA UK general public aged ≥ 18 years

n = 506 members of UK general public

Female (n = 258), male (n = 248)

Mean ± SD age 49 ± 17 years (range 18–82)

López-Bastida et al. [47] Cross-sectional, retrospective study Spain

EQ-5D-3L (parents/caregivers as proxies)

EQ-5D-5L (caregivers self-report)

NR Patients with SMA and their caregivers Caregivers completed EQ-5D-3L on behalf of patients and self-completed EQ-5D-5L

n = 81 patient–caregiver pairs

Children with SMA

Type 1 (n = 8), Type 2 (n = 60), Type 3 (n = 13)

Sex of patients: female (n = 47), male (n = 34)

Mean ± SD patient age 7.22 ± 5.47 years

Love et al. [58] Cross-sectional survey Canada HUI3b NR Patients with Types 1, 2, and 3 SMA aged 0–18 years Patients with SMA (aged 13–18 years) and caregivers of patients with SMA (aged 0–18 years) n = 14 patients, n = 46 parents. No additional information on patient demographics
Malone et al. [48] NA Global PedsQL data from CHERISH mapped to EQ-5D-Y using a published algorithm [36] NA Patients with Type 1 SMA CHERISH trial participants were aged 2–12 years NR
McMillan et al. [54] Survey Canada EQ-5D-5L NR Patients with SMA and their caregivers Surveys were self-completed by adult patients with SMA or proxy completed by caregivers (children with SMA or adults with SMA needing assistance)

n = 965 patient and n = 962 caregiver responses met eligibility criteria

Patient survey respondents with SMA: Type 1 (n = 241), Type 2 (n = 399), Type 3 (n = 283)

Patients of caregiver survey respondents: Type 1 (n = 285), Type 2 (n = 423), Type 3 (n = 241), unknown (n = 9)

Median age:

Patient survey respondents: 8.50 (IQR 2.75–23.50) years

Age of patient of caregiver survey respondents: 6.25 (IQR 2.00–11.42) years

Sex:

Patient survey respondents: female (n = 387), male (n = 576); non-respondents (n ≤ 5)

Patients of caregiver survey respondents: female (n = 551), male (n = 406); non-respondents (n = 5)

Peña-Longobardo et al. [55] Cross-sectional study France, Germany, UK

EQ-5D-3L (patients)

EQ-5D-5L (caregivers)

UK tariff Patients with Types 1, 2, and 3 SMA and their caregivers Children/adolescents with SMA and their caregivers

n = 86 patients with SMA–caregiver pairs

Patients with SMA:

Type 1 (n = 23), Type 2 (n = 45), Type 3 (n = 18)

Sex of patients: female (n = 51), male (n = 35)

Mean ± SD patient age:

France: 6.19 ± 6.13 years;

Germany: 9.52 ± 6.19 years;

UK: 5.55 ± 4.79 years

Rowell et al. [59] Survey UK EQ-5D-3L (crosswalk) UK tariff HRQoL of caregivers of patients with SMA; HRQoL of patients was not measured HRQoL: caregivers of patients with SMA

n = 80 caregivers

No additional information on patient demographics relevant to caregiver respondents

Sampson and Garau [49] Review reporting data from a cross-sectional study [68] France, Germany, Spain, UK EQ-5D-3L NR Caregivers of patients with SMA Caregivers of patients with SMA NR
Thompson et al. [50] Cross-sectional study France, Germany, Spain, UK

Three options:

1. Parent proxy using EQ-5D-3L

2. Case vignette study of physician-rated EQ-5D-5L and PedsQL (motor function health)

3. CHERISH mapped to EQ-5D using a published algorithm (unspecified)

NR Infants and young children with SMA

Three options:

1. Parents of patients with SMA

2. Physicians

3. Parent-proxy assessments of CHERISH trial participants

NR

DCE discrete choice experiment, HRQoL health-related quality of life, HUI health utilities index, IQR interquartile range, NA not applicable, NMM neuromuscular module, NR not reported, PedsQL Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, SD standard deviation, SMA spinal muscular atrophy

aDetails of how country-specific tariffs were derived are presented in Table 1 (question D).

bHUI2 values also reported in publication; HUI3 utility values only were extracted in this systematic literature review