Real-world evidence: a practical toolbox for collecting health state utilities
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Health state utilities (HSU) data collected in real-world evidence studies are at risk of bias. Although numerous guidance documents are available, practical advice to avoid bias in HSU studies is limited. Thus, the objective of this article was to develop a concise toolbox intended for investigators seeking to collect HSU in a real-world setting. The proposed toolbox builds on existing guidance and provides practical steps to help investigators perform good quality research. The toolbox aims at increasing the credibility of HSU data for future reimbursement decision making.
Supplementary Material
File (supplementary table 1.docx)
- Download
- 24.70 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •• of considerable interest
1.
O'Rourke B, Oortwijn W, Schuller T; International Joint Task Group. The new definition of health technology assessment: a milestone in international collaboration. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 36(3), 187–190 (2020).
2.
Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi I et al. Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost–effectiveness models: an ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report. Value Health 22(3), 267–275 (2019).
•• Contains a checklist of minimum reporting standards of systematic review of utilities for cost–effectiveness models.
3.
Garrison LP Jr, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, Marshall D, Mullins CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health 10(5), 326–335 (2007).
4.
Kreif N, Grieve R, Sadique MZ. Statistical methods for cost–effectiveness analyses that use observational data: a critical appraisal tool and review of current practice. Health Econ. 22(4), 486–500 (2013).
5.
Guertin JR, Conombo B, Langevin R et al. A systematic review of methods used for confounding adjustment in observational economic evaluations in cardiology conducted between 2013 and 2017. Med. Decis. Making 40(5), 582–595 (2020).
6.
Handorf EA, Heitjan DF, Bekelman JE, Mitra N. Estimating cost–effectiveness from claims and registry data with measured and unmeasured confounders. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 28(7), 2227–2242 (2019).
7.
Lambert-Obry V, Lafrance JP, Savoie M, Henri S, Lachaine J. Review of real-world evidence studies in Type 2 diabetes mellitus: lack of good practices. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 1–8 (2020) (Epub ahead of print).
8.
Faries D, Peng X, Pawaskar M, Price K, Stamey JD, Seaman JW Jr. Evaluating the impact of unmeasured confounding with internal validation data: an example cost evaluation in Type 2 diabetes. Value Health 16(2), 259–266 (2013).
9.
Frappier J, Tremblay G, Charny M, Cloutier LM. Costing bias in economic evaluations. J. Med. Econ. 18(8), 596–599 (2015).
10.
Fukuda H, Imanaka Y. Assessment of transparency of cost estimates in economic evaluations of patient safety programmes. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 15(3), 451–459 (2009).
11.
Harkanen T, Maljanen T, Lindfors O, Virtala E, Knekt P. Confounding and missing data in cost–effectiveness analysis: comparing different methods. Health Econ. Rev. 3(1), 8 (2013).
12.
Guertin JR, Bowen JM, De Rose G, O’reilly DJ, Tarride JE. Illustration of the impact of unmeasured confounding within an economic evaluation based on nonrandomized data. MDM Policy Pract. 2(1), 2381468317697711 (2017).
13.
Clement Nee Shrive FM, Ghali WA, Donaldson C, Manns BJ. The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches. Health Econ. 18(4), 377–388 (2009).
14.
Evans CJ, Crawford B. Data collection methods in prospective economic evaluations: how accurate are the results? Value Health 3(4), 277–286 (2000).
15.
Franklin M, Lomas J, Walker S, Young T. An educational review about using cost data for the purpose of cost–effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 37(5), 631–643 (2019).
16.
Ara R, Hill H, Lloyd A, Woods HB, Brazier J. are current reporting standards used to describe health state utilities in cost–effectiveness models satisfactory? Value Health 23(3), 397–405 (2020).
17.
Wolowacz SE, Briggs A, Belozeroff V et al. Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value Health 19(6), 704–719 (2016).
•• Provides guidance on how to collect health state utilities in clinical trials.
18.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and The Office of Health Economics (OHE). Real world evidence for coverage decisions: opportunities and challenges (2018) https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ICER-Real-World-Evidence-White-Paper-03282018.pdf
19.
Rowen D, Azzabi Zouraq I, Chevrou-Severac H, Van Hout B. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 35(Suppl. 1), 11–19 (2017).
20.
Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/
21.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). http://www.cadth.ca/
22.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). http://www.nice.org.uk/
23.
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). http://has-sante.fr
24.
German national institute for quality and efficiency in health care (IQWiG). http://www.iqwig.de/index.736.en.html
25.
National Health Care Institute (ZIN). http://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl
26.
Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk
27.
CatSalut Catalan Health Service. https://web.gencat.cat/en/temes/salut/
28.
The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). www.tlv.se
29.
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Methodology guidelines. https://eunethta.eu/methodology-guidelines/
30.
Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). HTAi vortal. https://vortal.htai.org
31.
International Health Economics Association (iHEA). Health preference research. https://www.healtheconomics.org/page/HealthPreference
32.
International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). HTA tools & resources. https://www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/
33.
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Good practices for outcomes research. https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/good-practices-for-outcomes-research
34.
Brazier J. Valuing health States for use in cost–effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 769–779 (2008).
35.
Brazier JE, Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2011) http://www.nicedsu.org.uk
36.
Kearns B, Ara R, Wailoo AG. A review of the use of statistical regression models to inform cost effectiveness analyses within the NICE technology appraisals programme: report by the decision support unit. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2012) www.nicedsu.org.uk
37.
Papaioannou D, Brazier JE, Paisley S. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 9: the identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2011) http://www.nicedsu.org.uk
38.
Rowen D, Brazier JE, Wong R, Wailoo AG. Measuring and valuing health-related quality of life when sufficient EQ-5D data is not available. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2020) http://nicedsu.org.uk
39.
Faria R, Alava MH, Manca A, Wailoo AG. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 17: the use of observational data to inform estimates of treatment effectiveness in technology appraisal: methods for comparative individual patient data. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015). http://www.nicedsu.org.uk
•• Provides guidance on how to conduct real-world evidence studies for comparative effectiveness research.
40.
Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, Towse A, Sedrakyan A, Normand SL. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 15(2), 217–230 (2012).
•• Provides guidance on how to conduct prospective comparative effectiveness studies.
41.
Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report – Part I. Value Health 12(8), 1044–1052 (2009).
42.
Berger ML, Martin BC, Husereau D et al. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 17(2), 143–156 (2014).
•• Contains a 33-item questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of comparative effectiveness studies.
43.
Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, Garbe E, Siebert U, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report–Part II. Value Health 12(8), 1053–1061 (2009).
44.
Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, Dormuth CR, Siebert U. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report–Part III. Value Health 12(8), 1062–1073 (2009).
•• Discusses analytical methods to avoid bias in retrospective comparative effectiveness studies.
45.
Motheral B, Brooks J, Clark MA et al. A checklist for retrospective database studies–report of the ISPOR Task Force on Retrospective Databases. Value Health 6(2), 90–97 (2003).
•• Contains a 27-item questionnaire to assess the relevance and validity of retrospective database studies.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 57 - 64
PubMed: 34668758
Copyright
© 2021 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Received: 21 May 2021
Accepted: 7 October 2021
Published online: 20 October 2021
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Real-world evidence: a practical toolbox for collecting health state utilities. (2021) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2021-0121
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.