Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methods guide recommends EQ-5D-3L as the preferred measure of health-related quality of life for health economic models. However, as EQ-5D-3L data on the condition, intervention or health states of interest may not be directly available, mapping may be required to help translate data for other non-preference or preference-based measures to EQ-5D-3L. As NICE Decision Support Unit guidance TSD10 and TSD22 primarily focus on guidance for developing mapping algorithms, the objective of this work was to develop guidance for identifying and selecting mapping algorithms.
METHODS: A targeted review was conducted to capture publications focusing on identifying and selecting mapping algorithms. Searches were not specific to particular conditions or geographic regions. Electronic searches were supported by a review of NICE appraisals published since 2020. Proposed guidance was then developed to outline best practices for mapping algorithm identification, and recommendations for key criteria that should be considered when choosing the most appropriate mapping algorithm to generate utility estimates for health economic models.
RESULTS: For mapping algorithm identification, a targeted literature search should be conducted in electronic databases, with search strings including relevant terms to identify mapping algorithms. Grey literature searches in established databases (e.g. HERC) and HTA websites (e.g. NICE) are also recommended. For mapping algorithm selection, criteria proposed included consideration of regression model type (e.g. response mapping), patient vs summary level data availability, comparisons of within study predictive performance and external study predictive performance (where available), mapping study population characteristics, underlying country tariffs, and both internal as well as external validity of mapped utility estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: Pilot guidance was developed for mapping algorithm identification and selection; however, further validation by subject matter experts is required to help ensure the guidance covers all relevant criteria and provides practical recommendations for health economics and outcomes research.