Jonathan C Tosh1, Louise J Longworth, Elisabeth George. 1. Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK. j.tosh@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the selection and use of health-related utility values for economic models included in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals. METHOD: A cross-sectional review of reports of economic models submitted to the Technology Appraisals program was undertaken to review the health-related utility data included. Data reviewed included identification and selection of data and the methods used for utility elicitation. The methods used were compared with those from the 2004 Methods Guide issued by NICE. RESULTS: Appraisals conducted after the implementation of the NICE 2004 Methods Guide were reviewed. After exclusion of documents that did not include a de novo cost-utility analysis, 71 submissions (53 manufacturer submissions, 18 assessment group reports) from 39 appraisals were identified, containing 284 unique utility values. Variation was found in the selection, elicitation, valuation, and use of the utility values. Thirty-nine submissions (55%) took utility values from published studies, of which only 31% were identified through a systematic review. Forty-seven (66%) submissions contained health state descriptions reported by patients, and 55 (77%) submissions applied a valuation set derived from the general population. The EQ-5D was used in 35 (49%) submissions, and mapping to a generic health-related quality of life measure was performed in 19 (27%) submissions. CONCLUSIONS: Only 56% of submissions to NICE and assessment reports included utility values that met the NICE 2004 reference case. This highlights variation in the methods used to select and incorporate utility values in economic models for NICE Technology Appraisals. Copyright
OBJECTIVE: To review the selection and use of health-related utility values for economic models included in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals. METHOD: A cross-sectional review of reports of economic models submitted to the Technology Appraisals program was undertaken to review the health-related utility data included. Data reviewed included identification and selection of data and the methods used for utility elicitation. The methods used were compared with those from the 2004 Methods Guide issued by NICE. RESULTS: Appraisals conducted after the implementation of the NICE 2004 Methods Guide were reviewed. After exclusion of documents that did not include a de novo cost-utility analysis, 71 submissions (53 manufacturer submissions, 18 assessment group reports) from 39 appraisals were identified, containing 284 unique utility values. Variation was found in the selection, elicitation, valuation, and use of the utility values. Thirty-nine submissions (55%) took utility values from published studies, of which only 31% were identified through a systematic review. Forty-seven (66%) submissions contained health state descriptions reported by patients, and 55 (77%) submissions applied a valuation set derived from the general population. The EQ-5D was used in 35 (49%) submissions, and mapping to a generic health-related quality of life measure was performed in 19 (27%) submissions. CONCLUSIONS: Only 56% of submissions to NICE and assessment reports included utility values that met the NICE 2004 reference case. This highlights variation in the methods used to select and incorporate utility values in economic models for NICE Technology Appraisals. Copyright
Authors: Gang Chen; Miguel A Garcia-Gordillo; Daniel Collado-Mateo; Borja Del Pozo-Cruz; José C Adsuar; José Manuel Cordero-Ferrera; José María Abellán-Perpiñán; Fernando Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez Journal: Patient Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Maíra Libertad Soligo Takemoto; Nilceia Lopes da Silva; Ana Carolina Padula Ribeiro-Pereira; Arthur Orlando Correa Schilithz; Cibele Suzuki Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 3.186