PE Guidelines logo
Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Around The World

Country/Region: Ireland

PE Guidelines
Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland (2018)
PDF in English

PE Guidelines Source:
Health Information and Quality Authority
The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics

Additional Information:
Guidance on Budget Impact Analysis of Health Technologies in Ireland (2015)

Guidelines for the Retrieval and Interpretation of Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies in Ireland (2014)

Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement in Health Technology Assessment in Ireland (2014)

Guidelines for Evaluating the Clinical Effectiveness of Health Technologies in Ireland (2014)

Last Webpage Update: Monday, January 29, 2018

PE Guidelines Key Features:

Key Features:  
Title and year of the documentGuidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland (2018) 
Affiliation of authorsHealth Information and Quality Authority 
Purpose of the documentTo promote the production of health technology assessments that are timely, reliable, consistent and relevant to the needs of decision makers and key stakeholders 
Standard reporting format includedNo, however the guidelines specify a reference case for use in the primary analysis 
Target audience of funding/ author's interestsAll those conducting economic evaluations in Ireland, to include health technology suppliers preparing applications for reimbursement and as a reference source for those using economic evaluations to inform decision making 
PerspectiveFor the reference case, the perspective on costs should be the publicly-funded health and social care system while the perspective on outcomes should include all health benefits accruing to individuals 
IndicationClearly state the specific application (e.g., purpose, place and context) that is being explored. 
Target populationShould be clearly defined - parameters include baseline demographic characteristics, disease characteristics, treatment setting, or in the context of past treatment. 
Subgroup analysisYes - ideally identified a priori based on plausible biological and clinical rationale for subgroup effect 
Choice of comparatorRecommended standard of care and those used in routine clinical practice 
Time horizonThe time horizon should be of sufficient duration to capture any meaningful differences in the future costs and outcomes likely to accrue to the competing technologies 
Assumptions requiredYes - clearly identify and justify all assumptions 
Preferred analytical techniqueFor the reference case, the preferred evaluation type is a cost-utility analysis 
Costs to be includedFor the reference case, only direct costs relevant to the publicly-funded health and social care system should be included 
Source of costsVaried - costs used should be relevant to the publicly-funded health and social care system, should be the most recently available with the cost year specified and all sources clearly identified. 
ModelingYes - model should be clearly described with all inputs and assumptions documented and justified. 
Systematic review of evidencesEvidence to support the effectiveness should be derived by systematic review of all high calibre, relevant data. 
Preference for effectiveness over efficacyFor the reference case, evidence to support the effectiveness of the technology should be derived by systematic review of all high-calibre, relevant data. 
Preferred outcome measureHealth effects should be expressed as QALYs with changes in quantity and quality of life reported separately along with a clear explanation of how the measures were combined and the assumptions made 
Preferred method to derive utilityThe use of indirect preference-based methods such as the EQ-5D or SD-6D is recommended. Information on changes in health state should be patient-derived with preferences elicited from a clearly described relevant population. Direct HRQoL methods may be used provided they have been gathered in a relevant population 
Equity issues statedFor the reference case, additional QALYs gained should be assumed to be of equal value, regardless of any considerations for specific characteristics of the population 
Discounting costs5% (Univariate sensitivity analysis 0-10%, 4-6%) 
Discounting outcomes5% (Univariate sensitivity analysis 0-10%, 4-6%) 
Sensitivity analysis-parameters and rangeThe effects of parameter uncertainty and model uncertainty should be systematically evaluated using sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses for the range of plausible scenarios. The range of values for each parameter should be clearly stated and justified. 
Sensitivity analysis-methodsDeterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis 
Presenting resultsPresent in tabular format in both disaggregated and aggregated forms. Uncertainty should be presented graphically and in tabular form to facilitate interpretation along with the probability that a technology is cost-effective at a range of threshold values. 
Incremental analysisYes 
Total costs vs effectiveness (cost/effectiveness ratio)Yes 
Portability of results (Generalizability)The overall generalizability of the evaluation should be discussed in the context of the validity and relevance of the data to the Irish publicly-funded health and social care system 
Financial impact analysisA budget impact analysis should be submitted. See separate BIA guidelines:  
Mandatory or recommended or voluntaryRecommended 

Acknowledgement: Conor Teljeur, PhD, Chief Scientist, HTA, Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Dublin, Ireland contributed to the key form

Country Selection Page | PE Guidelines Index Page