Literature DB >> 32514643

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

Matthew Kennedy-Martin1, Bernhard Slaap2,3, Michael Herdman4, Mandy van Reenen3, Tessa Kennedy-Martin5, Wolfgang Greiner6, Jan Busschbach2, Kristina S Boye7.   

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.

Entities:  

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

Year:  2020        PMID: 32514643     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  41 in total

1.  The impact of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis on health state utility values: evidence from Australia.

Authors:  E Haydn Walters; Andrew J Palmer; Ingrid A Cox; Barbara de Graaff; Hasnat Ahmed; Julie Campbell; Petr Otahal; Tamera J Corte; Ian Glaspole; Yuben Moodley; Nicole Goh; Sacha Macansh
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China.

Authors:  Guizhi Weng; Yanming Hong; Nan Luo; Clara Mukuria; Jie Jiang; Zhihao Yang; Sha Li
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-05-10

3.  Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis.

Authors:  Kamilla Koszorú; Krisztina Hajdu; Valentin Brodszky; Alex Bató; L Hunor Gergely; Anikó Kovács; Zsuzsanna Beretzky; Miklós Sárdy; Andrea Szegedi; Fanni Rencz
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-04-12

Review 4.  Measurement properties of the EQ-5D in populations with a mean age of ≥ 75 years: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sophie Gottschalk; Hans-Helmut König; Mona Nejad; Judith Dams
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.440

5.  Assessment of health-related quality of life in Australian patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and the AQoL-8D.

Authors:  Ingrid A Cox; Julie Campbell; Barbara de Graaff; Petr Otahal; Tamera J Corte; Yuben Moodley; Peter Hopkins; Sacha Macansh; E Haydn Walters; Andrew J Palmer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.440

6.  Associations between healthy lifestyle score and health-related quality of life among Chinese rural adults: variations in age, sex, education level, and income.

Authors:  Wei Liao; Xiaotian Liu; Ning Kang; Yu Song; Yinghao Yuchi; Ze Hu; Jian Hou; Chongjian Wang; Yuqian Li
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 3.440

Review 7.  Time trade-off health state utility values for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Péter György Balázs; Dalma Erdősi; Antal Zemplényi; Valentin Brodszky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.440

8.  Valuing EQ-5D-Y: the current state of play.

Authors:  N Devlin; T Pan; S Kreimeier; J Verstraete; E Stolk; K Rand; M Herdman
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.077

9.  Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Cate Bailey; Martin Howell; Kirsten Howard; Rosalie Viney; Rakhee Raghunandan; Amber Salisbury; Gang Chen; Joanna Coast; Jonathan C Craig; Nancy J Devlin; Elisabeth Huynh; Emily Lancsar; Brendan J Mulhern; Richard Norman; Stavros Petrou; Julie Ratcliffe; Deborah J Street
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.558

Review 10.  Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review.

Authors:  Tianxin Pan; Brendan Mulhern; Rosalie Viney; Richard Norman; An Tran-Duy; Janel Hanmer; Nancy Devlin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.