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:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kennedy-Martin, Matthew, Slaap, Bernhard, Herdman, Michael, van Reenen, Mandy, Kennedy-Martin, Tessa, Greiner, Wolfgang, Busschbach, Jan, Boye, Kristina S.
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