RECOMMENDATIONS ON HRQL/UTILITY DATA IN 14 EUROPEAN PHARMACOECONOMIC GUIDELINES

Author(s)

Szende A1, Rentz A2, Kline Leidy N3, 1MEDTAP International, London, England; 2MEDTAP International, Sindelfingen, Germany; 3MEDTAP International, Inc, Bethesda, MD, USA

OBJECTIVES: Health care decision-making processes, including public reimbursement of pharmaceuticals, fall under the responsibility of individual European states, with each country developing its own pharmacoeconomic evaluation recommendations. Each guideline addresses HRQL and utility assessment issues but vary in content and approach. The objective of this study was to provide an understanding of these differences. METHODS: MEDLINE and government agency searches were performed to identify pharmacoeconomic guidelines published in Europe. Recommendations on HRQL and utility evaluation were extracted and compared across guidelines. RESULTS: Guidelines on conducting health economic evaluation studies were found in 14 European countries. Ten were directly or closely related to the reimbursement authorities, while 4 had academic origin. Four different recommendations were proposed for evaluating HRQL outcomes: 1) Disease-specific and generic instruments should be used together (France, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal); 2) Either specific and/or generic instruments should be used depending on the objectives of the health economic study (Belgium, Hungary); 3) Only generic HRQL measures should be used only (Denmark, Spain); and 4) Three types of HRQL instruments should be used simultaneously in health economic evaluations: generic, disease-specific and utility-based HRQL instruments (Italy). Four countries did not recommend preferred methods for HRQL evaluation in their guidelines (Germany, Finland, Norway, UK). With respect to utility assessment, there appeared to be some consensus across guidelines: the EQ-5D and the HUI are acceptable instruments for estimating utilities indirectly, while the time-trade-off and the standard gamble methods are the most accepted methods for the direct measurement of utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Although there appears to be agreement on the preferred choice of utility-based instruments, recommendations for psychometrically-based HRQL evaluation vary substantially across guidelines published in various European countries.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2002-11, ISPOR Europe 2002, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Value in Health, Vol. 5, No. 6 (November/December 2002)

Code

CC2

Topic

Health Service Delivery & Process of Care

Topic Subcategory

Treatment Patterns and Guidelines

Disease

Multiple Diseases

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

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

×