Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010

Torbjørn Fosen Wisløff · Gunhild Hagen · Vida Hamidi · Espen Movik · Marianne Klemp · Jan Abel Olsen

191 citations0/0 files storedPharmacoEconomics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Economic and Environmental Valuation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

Reimbursement agencies in several countries now require health outcomes to be measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), leading to an immense increase in publications reporting QALY gains. However, there is a growing concern that the various 'multi-attribute utility' (MAU) instruments designed to measure the Q in the QALY yield disparate values, implying that results from different instruments are incommensurable. By reviewing cost-utility analyses published in 2010, we aim to contribute to improved knowledge on how QALYs are currently calculated in applied analyses; how transparently QALY measurement is presented; and how large the expected incremental QALY gains are. We searched Embase, MEDLINE and NHS EED for all cost-utility analyses published in 2010. All analyses that had estimated QALYs gained from health interventions were included. Of the 370 studies included in this review, 48% were pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Active comparators were used in 71% of studies. The median incremental QALY gain was 0.06, which translates to 3 weeks in best imaginable health. The EQ-5D-3L is the dominant instrument used. However, reporting of how QALY gains are estimated is generally inadequate. In 55% of the studies there was no reference to which MAU instrument or direct valuation method QALY data came from. The methods used for estimating expected QALY gains are not transparently reported in published papers. Given the wide variation in utility scores that different methodologies may assign to an identical health state, it is important for journal editors to require a more transparent way of reporting the estimation of incremental QALY gains.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 191 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 1996Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine 1997Modeling Valuations for EuroQol Health States 2013Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement 2016Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation 2006Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed 1999The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies 2005Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra

Cited by

2022The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results 2020Developing a New Version of the SF-6D Health State Classification System From the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2 2015A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation 2017A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models 2021Norwegian population norms for the EQ-5D-5L: results from a general population survey

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.