Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines

Matthew Kennedy-Martin, Bernhard Slaap, Michael Herdman, Mandy van Reenen, Tessa Kennedy-Martin, Wolfgang Greiner, Jan Busschbach, Kristina S Boye, Matthew Kennedy-Martin, Bernhard Slaap, Michael Herdman, Mandy van Reenen, Tessa Kennedy-Martin, Wolfgang Greiner, Jan Busschbach, Kristina S Boye

Abstract

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: 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: 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: 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.

Keywords: Cost-utility analysis; Guidelines; Health technology assessment; Multi-attribute utility instruments; Pharmacoeconomics; Utility.

Conflict of interest statement

Funding for the project was provided by EuroQol.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart for inclusion of PE guidelines in the review. CUA cost-utility analysis, HTA health technology assessment, MAUI multi-attribute utility instrument, PE pharmacoeconomic
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
MAUIs preferred or provided as an example across identified official PE guidelines. AQoL Assessment of Quality of Life, CHU9D Child Health Utility 9D, HUI Health Utility Index, MAUI multi-attribute utility instrument, QWB quality of well-being, SF-6D Short-Form 6-Dimension. Numbers sum to more than 34 because some guidelines cite more than one MAUI

References

    1. EQ-5D, 2019. . Accessed 16 Dec 2019
    1. Short-Form 6-Dimension (SF-6D). 2019. . Accessed 16 Dec 2019
    1. The Health Utilities Index. . Accessed 16 Dec 2019
    1. Assessment of Quality of Life. . Accessed 16 Dec 2019
    1. 15D. . Accessed 16 Dec 2019
    1. VR-6D. . Accessed 16 Dec 2019
    1. Quality of Wellbeing Scale. . Accessed 16 Dec 2019
    1. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2045–2053. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6.
    1. Rowen D, et al. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(Suppl 1):S11–S19. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y.
    1. Pattanaphesaj J, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(5):551–558. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574.
    1. Bae S, et al. Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version): consensus and compromise. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(4):257–267. doi: 10.1007/s40273-012-0021-6.
    1. Rencz F, et al. EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:2693–2710. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1375-6.
    1. Zhao Y, et al. A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. J Med Econ. 2018;21(1):85–96. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1387118.
    1. Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Multi attribute utility instruments and their use. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Health Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2014. pp. 341–357.
    1. Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–137. doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5.
    1. Kaló Z, et al. HTA implementation roadmap in Central and Eastern European countries. Health Econ. 2016;25(Suppl 1):179–192. doi: 10.1002/hec.3298.
    1. Gulácsi L, et al. Health technology assessment in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(Suppl 1):S13–S25. doi: 10.1007/s10198-014-0590-8.
    1. Rosselli D, et al. HTA implementation in Latin American countries: comparison of current and preferred status. Value Health Reg Issues. 2017;14:20–27. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2017.02.004.
    1. Yang BM. The future of health technology assessment in healthcare decision making in Asia. PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(11):891–901. doi: 10.2165/11310280-000000000-00000.
    1. Kamae I. Value-based approaches to healthcare systems and pharmacoeconomics requirements in Asia: South Korea, Taiwan Thailand and Japan. PharmacoEconomics. 2010;28(10):831–838. doi: 10.2165/11538360-000000000-00000.
    1. Blüher M, et al. Critical Review of European Health-Economic Guidelines for the Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices. Front Med. 2019;6:278. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00278.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться