Literature DB >> 29052162

International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment.

Donna Rowen1, Ismail Azzabi Zouraq2, Helene Chevrou-Severac2, Ben van Hout3.   

Abstract

Recommendations and guidelines for the collection, generation, source and usage of utility data for health technology assessment (HTA) vary across different countries, with no international consensus. Many international agencies generate their own guidelines providing details on their preferred methods for HTA submissions, and there is variability in both what they recommend and the clarity and amount of detail provided in their guidelines. This article provides an overview of international regulations and recommendations for utility data in HTA for a selection of key HTA countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden and the UK (England/Wales and Scotland). International guidelines are typically clear and detailed for the selection of countries assessed regarding the source description of health states (e.g. generic preference-based measure) and who should provide preference weights for these health states (e.g. general population for own country). Many guidelines specify the use of off-the-shelf generic preference-based measures, and some further specify a measure, such as EQ-5D. However, international guidelines are either unclear or lack detailed guidance regarding the collection (e.g. patients report own health), source (e.g. clinical trial) and usage (e.g. adjusting for comorbidities) of utility values. It is argued that there is a need for transparent and detailed international guidelines on utility data recommendations to provide decision makers with the best possible evidence. Where this is not possible it is recommended that best practice should be used to inform the collection, source and usage of utility values in HTA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29052162     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  9 in total

1.  A discrete choice experiment to obtain a tariff for valuing informal care situations measured with the CarerQol instrument.

Authors:  Renske J Hoefman; Job van Exel; John M Rose; E J van de Wetering; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Estimating Health-State Utility for Economic Models in Clinical Studies: An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report.

Authors:  Sorrel E Wolowacz; Andrew Briggs; Vasily Belozeroff; Philip Clarke; Lynda Doward; Ron Goeree; Andrew Lloyd; Richard Norman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016 Sep - Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  From Good to Better: New Dutch Guidelines for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare.

Authors:  Matthijs Versteegh; Saskia Knies; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Estimating Health State Utility Values for Comorbidities.

Authors:  Roberta Ara; John Brazier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models.

Authors:  Roberta Ara; John Brazier; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale.

Authors:  Hareth Al-Janabi; Terry N Flynn; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US.

Authors:  Renske J Hoefman; Job van Exel; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states.

Authors:  Kristina Burström; Sun Sun; Ulf-G Gerdtham; Martin Henriksson; Magnus Johannesson; Lars-Åke Levin; Niklas Zethraeus
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 4.147

  9 in total
  37 in total

Review 1.  An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Matthew Franklin; James Lomas; Simon Walker; Tracey Young
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?

Authors:  Samer A Kharroubi; Donna Rowen
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-07-06

3.  Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn's disease.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; Peter L Lakatos; László Gulácsi; Valentin Brodszky; Zsuzsanna Kürti; Szilvia Lovas; János Banai; László Herszényi; Tamás Cserni; Tamás Molnár; Márta Péntek; Károly Palatka
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Modelling a preference-based index for EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-3L + Sleep using a Bayesian framework.

Authors:  Samer A Kharroubi; Yara S Beyh; John Brazier; Yaling Yang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

Authors:  David John Mott
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Heath State Utility Values for Cost-Effectiveness Models.

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Special Edition on Utility Measurement, PharmacoEconomics.

Authors:  Andrew Lloyd
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Roberta Ara; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Health-related quality of life measured using EQ-5D in patients with lymphomas.

Authors:  Richard Huan Xu; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Jun Jin; Huiqiang Huang; Dong Dong
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia.

Authors:  Richard Huan Xu; Dong Dong; Nan Luo; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Yushan Wu; Siyue Yu; Renchi Yang; Junshuai Liu; Huiqin Yuan; Shuyang Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-03-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.