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

Value in Health

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 704-719

  Wolowacz, Sorrel E ^a   Briggs, Andrew ^b   Belozeroff, Vasily ^c   Clarke, Philip ^d   Doward, Lynda ^a   Goeree, Ron ^e,f   Lloyd, Andrew ^g   Norman, Richard ^h  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c AMGEN INC   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f Goeree Consulting   (Canada)

^g Bladon Associates   (United Kingdom)

^h CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

economic model; health utility; recommendations

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; ECONOMIC MODEL; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH STATE UTILITY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAFETY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84992395844     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. [1] Lenert, L., Kaplan, R.M., Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 38:Suppl. 9 (2000 Sep), II138–II150.
2. [2] Feeny, D., A utility approach to the assessment of health-related quality of life. Med Care 38:Suppl. 9 (2000), II151–II154.
3. [3] Robinson, R., Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 307 (1993), 859–862.
4. [4] Kind, P., Lafata, J.E., Matuszewski, K., Raisch, D., The use of QALYs in clinical and patient decision-making: issues and prospects. Value Health 12:S1 (2009), S27–S30.
5. [5] European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. 2005. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/emea-hrql-guidance.pdf〉. [Accessed February 12, 2015].
6. [6] US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. December 2009. Available at: 〈www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf〉. [Accessed February 12, 2015].
7. [7] Schipper, H., Clinch, J.J., Olweny, C.L.M., Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. Spilker, B., (eds.) Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials., 1996, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia.
8. [8] Neumann, P.J., Goldie, S.J., Weinstein, M.C., Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health 21 (2000), 587–611.
9. [9] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. June 2008. Available at: 〈http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2008.jsp?domedia=1&mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459〉. [Accessed February 26, 2014].
10. [10] Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 2013. Available at: 〈http://www.pbac.pbs.gov.au/home.html〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014].
11. [11] Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 2006. Available at: 〈http://cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014].
12. [12] Haute Autorité de Santé. A methodological guide: choices in methods for economic evaluations. 2012. Available at: 〈http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014].
13. [13] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. Available at: 〈https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/Foreword〉. [Accessed September 6, 2014].
14. [14] Papaioannou, D., Brazier, J., Paisley, S., Systematic searching and selection of health state utility values from the literature. Value Health 16 (2013), 686–695.
15. [15] Papaioannou D, Brazier JE, Paisley S. NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 9: the identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.nicedsu.org.uk〉. [Accessed March 24, 2015].
16. [16] Peasgood, T., Brazier, J., Is meta-analysis for utility values appropriate given the potential impact different elicitation methods have on values?. Pharmacoeconomics 33 (2015), 1101–1105.
17. [17] Brazier JE, Longworth L. NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 8: an introduction to the measurement and valuation of health for NICE submissions. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.nicedsu.org.uk〉. [Accessed March 24, 2015].
18. [18] Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Narewska, J., et al. Health state utilities for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95 (2006), 683–690.
19. [19] Lenert, L.A., Sturley, A.P., Rapaport, M.H., et al. Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores. Schizophr Res 71 (2004), 155–165.
20. [20] Brazier JE, Rowen D. NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.nicedsu.org.uk〉. [Accessed March 24, 2015].
21. [21] Young, T.A., Yang, Y., Brazier, J.E., Tsuchiya, A., The use of Rasch analysis in reducing a large condition-specific instrument for preference valuation: the case of moving from AQLQ to AQL-5D. Med Decis Making 31 (2011), 195–210.
22. [22] Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 14 (2011), 721–731.
23. [23] Wailoo, A., Hernandez Alavz, M., Manca, A., et al. Mapping to estimate health state utility estimates from non-preference based outcomes measures for cost per QALY economic analysis: An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health. In press., 2016.
24. [24] Rentz, A.M., Kowalski, J.W., Walt, J.G., et al. Development of a preference-based index from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25. JAMA Ophthalmol 132 (2014), 310–318.
25. [25] Ma, Y., Huang, J., Zhu, B., et al. Cost-utility analyses of cataract surgery in advanced age-related macular degeneration. Optom Vis Sci 93 (2016), 165–172.
26. [26] Oppe, M., Devlin, N., van Hout, B., et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health 17 (2014), 445–453.
27. [27] Norman, R., King, M.T., Clarke, D., et al. Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Qual Life Res 19 (2010), 499–508.
28. [28] Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick HA, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials, II: an ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 2015;18:161–72. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/Cost-Effectiveness-clinical-trials-guideline.asp〉. [Accessed February 18, 2016].
29. [29] Capri, S., Ceci, A., Terranova, L., et al. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian group of Pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf J 35 (2001), 189–201.
30. [30] Kennedy-Martin, T., Mitchell, B.D., Boye, K.S., et al. The health technology assessment environment in mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—implications for the evaluation of diabetes mellitus therapies. Value Health Regional Issues 3 (2014), 108–116.
31. [31] Lopez-Bastida, Oliva J., Antonanza, F., et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluations of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ 11 (2010), 513–520.
32. [32] International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world: Brazil. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/countrydet.asp?c=32&t=1〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014]. Referenced to: Methodological guidelines: economic evaluation of health technologies [Portuguese]. 2009. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Economic-Evaluation-Guidelines-in-Brazil-Final-Version-2009.pdf〉 Brazil Ministry of Health 〈http://www.saude.gov.br〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014].
33. [33] International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world: Mexico. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/countrydet.asp?c=37&t=1〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014]. Referenced to: Guidelines for economic appraisal studies for updating the health sector's national formulary in Mexico [Spanish]. 2008. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Mexico-Guidelines-for-Economic-Appraisal-Studies_2008.pdf〉 Mexico National Institute for Public Health 〈http://www.insp.mx/〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014].
34. [34] International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world: China. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/countrydet.asp?c=37&t=1〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014]. Referenced to China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/China-Guidelines-for-Pharmacoeconomic-Evaluations_2011_Chinese.pdf〉. [Accessed July 24, 2014].
35. [35] Longworth L, Rowen D. NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 10: the use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values. 2011. Available at: 〈http://www.nicedsu.org.uk〉. [Accessed March 24, 2015].
36. [36] Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., et al. Multinational trials—recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: the ISPOR Patient Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 12 (2009), 430–440.
37. [37] Coons, S.J., Gwaltney, C.J., Hays, R.D., et al. ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 12 (2009), 419–429.
38. [38] Eremenco, S., Coons, S.J., Paty, J., et al., on behalf of the ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Task Force. PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: report of the ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 17 (2014), 501–516.
39. [39] Zbrozek, A., Hebert, J., Gogates, G., et al. Validation of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data—recommendations for clinical trial teams: report of the ISPOR ePRO Systems Validation Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 16 (2013), 480–489.
40. [40] Matza, L.S., Patrick, D., Riley, A.W., et al. Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices for the Assessment of Children and Adolescents Task Force. Value Health 16 (2013), 461–479.
41. [41] Rothman, M., Burke, L., Erickson, P., et al. Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report. Value Health 12 (2009), 1075–1083.
42. [42] Patrick, D.L., Burke, L.B., Gwaltney, C.J., et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly-developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report, part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 14 (2011), 967–977.
43. [43] Bleehen, N.M., Girling, D.J., Machin, D., Stephens, R.J., A randomised trial of three or six courses of etoposide cyclophosphamide methotrexate and vincristine or six courses of etoposide and ifosfamide in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), II: quality of life. Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party. Br J Cancer 68 (1993), 1157–1166.
44. [44] Alva, M., Gray, A., Mihaylova, B., Clarke, P., The effect of diabetes complications on health-related quality of life: the importance of longitudinal data to address patient heterogeneity. Health Econ 23 (2014), 487–500.
45. [45] Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). 2012. Available at: 〈http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_092625.pdf〉. [Accessed September 1, 2012].
46. [46] Bowling, A., Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxford) 27 (2005), 281–291.
47. [47] Clarke, P., Ryan, C., Self-reported health: reliability and consequences for health inequality measurement. Health Econ 15 (2006), 645–652.
48. [48] Critical Path Institute Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes Consortium. Best practices for electronic implementation of patient-reported outcome response scale options. 2014. Available at: 〈http://c-path.org/programs/epro/#section-5648〉. [Accessed January 12, 2016].
49. [49] Brazier, J., Connell, J., Papaioannou, D., et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess, 18, 2014 vii –viii, xiii–xxv, 1–188.
50. [50] Bryan, S., Hardyman, W., Bentham, P., et al. Proxy completion of EQ-5D in patients with dementia. Qual Life Res 14 (2005), 107–118.
51. [51] Ungar, W.J., Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated?. Pharmacoeconomics 29 (2011), 641–652.
52. [52] Sonntag, M., Konig, H.H., Konnopka, A., The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 31 (2013), 1131–1154.
53. [53] Mathias, S.D., Bates, M.M., Pasta, D.J., et al. Use of the Health Utilities Index with stroke patients and their caregivers. Stroke 28 (1997), 1888–1894.
54. [54] Lee, J.M., Rhee, K., O'Grady, M.J., et al., JDRF Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Health utilities for children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Med Care 49 (2011), 924–931.
55. [55] Little, R.J., D'Agostino, R., Cohen, M.L., et al. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 367 (2012), 1355–1360.
56. [56] Kerr, C., Lloyd, A., Rowen, D., et al. Androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer prevention: what impact do related adverse events have on quality of life?. Health Outcomes Res Med 3 (2012), e169–e180.
57. [57] Lloyd, A.J., Price, D., Brown, R., The impact of asthma exacerbations on health-related quality of life in moderate to severe asthma patients in the UK. Prim Care Respir J 16 (2007), 22–27.
58. [58] Keetharuth A, Dixon S, Winter M, et al. Effects of Cancer Treatment on Quality of Life (ECTQOL): final results report by the Decision Support Unit. September 2014. Available at: 〈http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/DSU_Cancer_utilities_ECTQoL_final_report_SEPT_2014.pdf〉. [Accessed January 12, 2016].
59. [59] Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Moore, L., et al. Practical difficulties with conducting non-interventional research for NICE technology appraisals: a case study of a quality of life assessment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patients. Br J Haematol, 149, 2010, 60.
60. [60] Briggs AH, Parfrey PS, Khan N, et al. Analyzing health-related quality of life in the EVOLVE trial: the joint impact of treatment and clinical events [published online ahead of print March 17, 2016]. Med Decis Making. pii: 0272989X16638312.
61. [61] Hernandez-Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Ara, R., Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D health state utility values. Value Health 15 (2012), 550–561.
62. [62] Manning, W.G., Mullahy, J., Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?. J Health Econ 20 (2001), 461–494.
63. [63] Hanley, J.A., Negassa, A., Edwardes, M.DdeB., Forrester, J.E., Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol 157 (2003), 364–375, 10.1093/aje/kwf215.
64. [64] Basu, A., Manca, A., Regression estimators for generic health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years. Med Decis Making 32 (2012), 56–69.
65. [65] Jones A. Models for healthcare. HEDG Working Paper 10/01. 2010. Available at: 〈https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/herc/wp/10_01.pdf〉. [Accessed December 8, 2015].
66. [66] Duan, N., Smearing estimate: a nonparametric retransformation method. J Am Stat Assoc 78 (1983), 605–610.
67. [67] Altman, D.G., Comparability of randomised groups. Statistician 34:1 (1985), 125–136.
68. [68] Pocock, S.J., Clinical Trials—A Practical Approach. 1985, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
69. [69] Salomon, J.A., Patel, A., Neal, B., et al. Comparability of patient-reported health status: multicountry analysis of EQ-5D responses in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med Care 49 (2011), 962–970.
70. [70] Hayes, A., Arima, H., Woodward, M., et al. Changes in quality of life associated with complications of diabetes: results from the ADVANCE study. Value Health 19 (2016), 36–41.
71. [71] Briggs, A., Sculpher, M., Claxton, K., Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford.