Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines: Ireland

Country/Region: Ireland
PE Guidelines

Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland (2019)

PE Guidelines Source:
Additional Information:

Guidance on Budget Impact Analysis of Health Technologies in Ireland (2018)

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 (2017)

Information current as of Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Key Features

Type of Guidelines PE Guidelines
Title and year of the document Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland (2019)
Affiliation of authors Health Information and Quality Authority
Purpose of the document To 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 included No, however the guidelines specify a reference case for use in the primary analysis
Disclosure N/A
Target audience of funding/ author's interests All 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
Perspective For 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
Indication Clearly state the specific application (e.g., purpose, place and context) that is being explored.
Target population Should be clearly defined - parameters include baseline demographic characteristics, disease characteristics, treatment setting, or in the context of past treatment.
Subgroup analysis Yes - ideally identified a priori based on plausible biological and clinical rationale for subgroup effect
Choice of comparator Recommended standard of care and those used in routine clinical practice
Time horizon The 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 required Yes - clearly identify and justify all assumptions
Preferred analytical technique For the reference case, the preferred evaluation type is a cost-utility analysis
Costs to be included For the reference case, only direct costs relevant to the publicly-funded health and social care system should be included
Source of costs Varied - 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.
Modeling Yes - model should be clearly described with all inputs and assumptions documented and justified.
Systematic review of evidences Evidence to support the effectiveness should be derived by systematic review of all high calibre, relevant data.
Preference for effectiveness over efficacy For 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 measure Health 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 utility The 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 stated For 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 costs 4% (Univariate sensitivity analysis 0-10%, 3-5%)
Discounting outcomes 4% (Univariate sensitivity analysis 0-10%, 3-5%)
Sensitivity analysis-parameters and range The 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-methods Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis
Presenting results Present 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 analysis Yes
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 analysis A budget impact analysis should be submitted. See separate BIA guidelines:
Mandatory or recommended or voluntary Recommended


Conor Teljeur, PhD, Chief Scientist, HTA, Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Dublin, Ireland contributed to the key form
Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on Update my browser now