Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines.
Cost-utility analysis
Guidelines
Health technology assessment
Multi-attribute utility instruments
Pharmacoeconomics
Utility
Journal
The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
ISSN: 1618-7601
Titre abrégé: Eur J Health Econ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101134867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
06
09
2019
accepted:
25
04
2020
pubmed:
10
6
2020
medline:
11
9
2021
entrez:
10
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Several multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are available from which utilities can be derived for use in cost-utility analysis (CUA). This study provides a review of recommendations from national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies regarding the choice of MAUIs. A list was compiled of HTA agencies that provide or refer to published official pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines for pricing, reimbursement or market access. The guidelines were reviewed for recommendations on the indirect calculation of utilities and categorized as: a preference for a specific MAUI; providing no MAUI preference, but providing examples of suitable MAUIs and/or recommending the use of national value sets; and recommending CUA, but not providing examples of MAUIs. Thirty-four PE guidelines were included for review. MAUIs named for use in CUA: EQ-5D (n = 29 guidelines), the SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 10), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). EQ-5D was a preferred MAUI in 15 guidelines. Alongside the EQ-5D, the HUI was a preferred MAUI in one guideline, with DALY disability weights mentioned in another. Fourteen guidelines expressed no preference for a specific MAUI, but provided examples: EQ-5D (n = 14), SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 9), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). Of those that did not specify a particular MAUI, 12 preferred calculating utilities using national preference weights. The EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-6D were the three MAUIs most frequently mentioned in guidelines. The most commonly cited MAUI (in 85% of PE guidelines) was EQ-5D, either as a preferred MAUI or as an example of a suitable MAUI for use in CUA in HTA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are available from which utilities can be derived for use in cost-utility analysis (CUA). This study provides a review of recommendations from national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies regarding the choice of MAUIs.
METHODS
METHODS
A list was compiled of HTA agencies that provide or refer to published official pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines for pricing, reimbursement or market access. The guidelines were reviewed for recommendations on the indirect calculation of utilities and categorized as: a preference for a specific MAUI; providing no MAUI preference, but providing examples of suitable MAUIs and/or recommending the use of national value sets; and recommending CUA, but not providing examples of MAUIs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-four PE guidelines were included for review. MAUIs named for use in CUA: EQ-5D (n = 29 guidelines), the SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 10), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). EQ-5D was a preferred MAUI in 15 guidelines. Alongside the EQ-5D, the HUI was a preferred MAUI in one guideline, with DALY disability weights mentioned in another. Fourteen guidelines expressed no preference for a specific MAUI, but provided examples: EQ-5D (n = 14), SF-6D (n = 11), HUI (n = 9), QWB (n = 3), AQoL (n = 2), CHU9D (n = 1). Of those that did not specify a particular MAUI, 12 preferred calculating utilities using national preference weights.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-6D were the three MAUIs most frequently mentioned in guidelines. The most commonly cited MAUI (in 85% of PE guidelines) was EQ-5D, either as a preferred MAUI or as an example of a suitable MAUI for use in CUA in HTA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32514643
doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8
pii: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8
pmc: PMC7561556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1245-1257Références
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Dec;35(Suppl 1):11-19
pubmed: 29052162
Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):831-8
pubmed: 20831290
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Apr;31(4):257-67
pubmed: 23322587
Value Health Reg Issues. 2017 Dec;14:20-27
pubmed: 29254537
Eur J Health Econ. 2014 May;15 Suppl 1:S13-25
pubmed: 24832832
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018 Oct;18(5):551-558
pubmed: 29958008
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):127-137
pubmed: 28194657
Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:179-92
pubmed: 26763688
Qual Life Res. 2016 Nov;25(11):2693-2710
pubmed: 27472992
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):891-901
pubmed: 19888790
Front Med (Lausanne). 2019 Nov 29;6:278
pubmed: 31850356
Qual Life Res. 2015 Aug;24(8):2045-53
pubmed: 25636660
J Med Econ. 2018 Jan;21(1):85-96
pubmed: 28959910