A Review of Utility Data Used in Health Technology Assessments From the Perspective of a Health Technology Assessment Body
Author(s)
Marina Rosca, BSc, MPharm, MSc, Alissa Looby, BSc Pharm, MSc, Natalia Maraeva, MPhil, MSc, Lesley Tilson, BSc, PhD, Roisin Adams, BSc, PhD, Laura Mccullagh, BSc, PhD, Niamh Carey, BSc, MSc, PhD.
National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, Dublin, Ireland.
National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, Dublin, Ireland.
OBJECTIVES: To review data sources and methods to derive health-state utility values (HSUVs) used in economic models as part of health technology assessments (HTAs) submitted to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE).
METHODS: All HTA assessments completed between January 2023 and December 2024 were included. Data relating to HSUVs were extracted from the NCPE assessment reports for review. An Excel-based data extraction sheet was developed and refined to guide data extraction. Data extraction was completed by one reviewer and subject to an independent check by a second reviewer. Following data extraction, common themes were identified for further analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 51 HTA reports reviewed, HSUVs in the Applicant’s base case were derived from clinical trials in 26, from literature in 11, from a combination of both in 10, and from observational or vignette-based studies in 4. EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L data derived directly from clinical trials and literature were reported in 26 and 4 assessments, respectively. Derivation of HSUVs using generic instruments was reported in 20 submissions, disease-specific in 9, and a combination of both in 14, mapping was conducted by the Applicant in 35 HTA submissions. Adverse events (AEs) were applied in the economic model in 32 Applicant HTA submissions. Age-adjustment of HSUVs was applied in 32 submissions.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation was observed in sourcing, adjustment, and application of HSUV data across HTA submissions to the NCPE. A considerable proportion of submissions derived utility data using generic preference-based instruments such as the EQ-5D-5L, which required mapping to EQ-5D-3L introducing methodological uncertainty. Several submissions omitted AE disutilities or age adjustments, contributing to heterogeneity in utility estimation. The limited collection of HSUV data in trials adds further challenges to the assessment of such outcomes. These variations may have implications for the consistency and comparability of cost-effectiveness estimates submitted to the NCPE.
METHODS: All HTA assessments completed between January 2023 and December 2024 were included. Data relating to HSUVs were extracted from the NCPE assessment reports for review. An Excel-based data extraction sheet was developed and refined to guide data extraction. Data extraction was completed by one reviewer and subject to an independent check by a second reviewer. Following data extraction, common themes were identified for further analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 51 HTA reports reviewed, HSUVs in the Applicant’s base case were derived from clinical trials in 26, from literature in 11, from a combination of both in 10, and from observational or vignette-based studies in 4. EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L data derived directly from clinical trials and literature were reported in 26 and 4 assessments, respectively. Derivation of HSUVs using generic instruments was reported in 20 submissions, disease-specific in 9, and a combination of both in 14, mapping was conducted by the Applicant in 35 HTA submissions. Adverse events (AEs) were applied in the economic model in 32 Applicant HTA submissions. Age-adjustment of HSUVs was applied in 32 submissions.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation was observed in sourcing, adjustment, and application of HSUV data across HTA submissions to the NCPE. A considerable proportion of submissions derived utility data using generic preference-based instruments such as the EQ-5D-5L, which required mapping to EQ-5D-3L introducing methodological uncertainty. Several submissions omitted AE disutilities or age adjustments, contributing to heterogeneity in utility estimation. The limited collection of HSUV data in trials adds further challenges to the assessment of such outcomes. These variations may have implications for the consistency and comparability of cost-effectiveness estimates submitted to the NCPE.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA15
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas