OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare utilities for stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and heart failure in Asia with those in other geographic regions.  METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify English-language articles in Embase, PubMed, and grey literature published between 1992 and August 2015 using keywords for cardiovascular events and utilities. Primary studies reporting utilities for stroke, ACS (including myocardial infarction and angina), and heart failure in adults were included. Trends in utilities by population, health state, and methodology were evaluated. RESULTS: Among the 290 articles included, studies from Europe (135), Canada/US (86), Asia (23), and Australia (12) were frequent. Across regions, stroke was most frequently evaluated. In Asia, no articles reported utilities for heart failure, while many evaluated stroke (74%) and ACS (52%). In the other regions, cardiovascular conditions were evaluated with similar frequency (stroke: 42%–56%; heart failure: 25%–43%; ACS: 30%–42%). In all four regions, EQ-5D was the most common method of utility elicitation, but was used more often in Asia (87%) and Europe (87%) than in Canada/US (42%) and Australia (50%). Direct methods of utility elicitation were used more often in Canada/US (35%) than the other regions (10%–16%). All Asian and Australian studies were conducted in patients with the disease, whereas in Canada/US and Europe 8%–9% of articles elicited utilities from general population respondents or carers. Ranges of utility values were wide in all regions. When reported, disease severity was associated with lower utilities in all regions; ranges for mild, moderate, and severe stroke and heart failure were similar across regions.   CONCLUSIONS: Across regions, utilities were elicited using different methodologies, but ranges by disease severity were similar. Regional gaps in utility data can be filled using data from other countries with attention to methods, disease severity, and time since event.