Cargando…
Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines
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:...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561556/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32514643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8 |
_version_ | 1783595293354229760 |
---|---|
author | Kennedy-Martin, Matthew Slaap, Bernhard Herdman, Michael van Reenen, Mandy Kennedy-Martin, Tessa Greiner, Wolfgang Busschbach, Jan Boye, Kristina S. |
author_facet | Kennedy-Martin, Matthew Slaap, Bernhard Herdman, Michael van Reenen, Mandy Kennedy-Martin, Tessa Greiner, Wolfgang Busschbach, Jan Boye, Kristina S. |
author_sort | Kennedy-Martin, Matthew |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7561556 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75615562020-10-19 Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines Kennedy-Martin, Matthew Slaap, Bernhard Herdman, Michael van Reenen, Mandy Kennedy-Martin, Tessa Greiner, Wolfgang Busschbach, Jan Boye, Kristina S. Eur J Health Econ Original Paper 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. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-06-08 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7561556/ /pubmed/32514643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Kennedy-Martin, Matthew Slaap, Bernhard Herdman, Michael van Reenen, Mandy Kennedy-Martin, Tessa Greiner, Wolfgang Busschbach, Jan Boye, Kristina S. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines |
title | Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines |
title_full | Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines |
title_fullStr | Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines |
title_full_unstemmed | Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines |
title_short | Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines |
title_sort | which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? a review of national health technology assessment (hta) guidelines |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561556/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32514643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kennedymartinmatthew whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines AT slaapbernhard whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines AT herdmanmichael whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines AT vanreenenmandy whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines AT kennedymartintessa whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines AT greinerwolfgang whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines AT busschbachjan whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines AT boyekristinas whichmultiattributeutilityinstrumentsarerecommendedforuseincostutilityanalysisareviewofnationalhealthtechnologyassessmenthtaguidelines |