Budget impact of introducing subcutaneous vedolizumab as a maintenance therapy in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis in France.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease poses significant social and economic burdens. We assessed the budget impact of including the recently approved subcutaneous (SC) formulation of vedolizumab as maintenance therapy (MT) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in France. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed from a French payer's perspective over 5 years to assess budget impact of including vedolizumab SC as MT for UC following induction therapy with vedolizumab intravenous (IV), by subtracting outcomes of a 'world without vedolizumab SC' from a 'world with vedolizumab SC.' Comparators included approved therapies: infliximab (branded/biosimilar), adalimumab (branded/biosimilar), golimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab IV. The model predicts drug, medical, and total costs, including indirect costs in a scenario analysis. A one-way sensitivity analysis explored the impact of varying individual parameters. RESULTS: Including vedolizumab SC as MT following vedolizumab IV induction yielded total cost savings of €59,176,842 (biologic-naïve) and €22,004,135 (biologic-experienced) versus a world without vedolizumab SC. Including indirect costs yielded cost savings in biologic-naïve (€62,600,716) and biologic-experienced (€24,314,915) populations in a world with vedolizumab SC. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing vedolizumab SC as MT after IV induction is expected to have substantial cost savings to a health plan from a French payer's perspective versus a world without vedolizumab SC.

Health state utilities for beta-thalassemia: a time trade-off study.

BACKGROUND: Beta-thalassemia (BT) is an inherited blood disorder characterized by reduced levels of functional hemoglobin resulting in phenotypes ranging from clinically asymptomatic to severely anemic. Patients with BT may require lifelong regular blood transfusions supported by appropriate iron chelation therapy (ICT). This study aimed to determine how the UK general population values BT health states associated with differing transfusion burden and ICT. METHODS: Composite time trade-off (cTTO) methodology was employed to elicit health state utilities in BT. Relevant BT literature related to symptom and quality-of-life impact, including physical, functional, and emotional well-being, and safety profiles of BT treatments were considered when drafting health state descriptions. Eleven health state descriptions were developed and validated by hematologists and patient advocates for clinical accuracy and completeness. 200 individuals from the UK general population participated in the cTTO interviews. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 41.50 years (SD 16.01, range 18-81); 88 (46.8%) were female. Utility values ranged from 0.78 (SD 0.34) for non-transfusion dependent BT with oral ICT to 0.37 (SD 0.50) for high transfusion burden with subcutaneous ICT in transfusion-dependent BT. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides health utilities for a range of BT health states from the UK general population perspective. Importantly, lower transfusion burden and lower burden of anemia were associated with higher utilities. To a lesser extent, differential modes of ICT were found to impact utility valuations in patients with BT. The utilities obtained in this study can be employed as inputs in cost-effectiveness analyses of BT therapies.

Cost Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Vedolizumab for Maintenance Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis in Canada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ulcerative colitis is highly prevalent in Canada and cost-effective ulcerative colitis therapies are warranted. Vedolizumab subcutaneous (SC) formulation was recently approved for ulcerative colitis maintenance therapy. We assessed vedolizumab SC cost effectiveness vs conventional and advanced therapeutics in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to evaluate vedolizumab SC costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost effectiveness vs conventional therapy, adalimumab SC, infliximab intravenous, golimumab SC, tofacitinib, ustekinumab SC, and vedolizumab intravenous. This model predicts the number of patients achieving clinical response and remission after treatment induction, and sustained benefit during maintenance treatment. To account for statistical uncertainties, the base-case analysis was conducted in a probabilistic manner. Scenario analyses examined the impact of previous treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, dose escalation, loss of efficacy, and treatment adherence. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, conventional therapy was the most cost-effective therapeutic option in the overall population. Vedolizumab SC was cost effective and dominant compared with other advanced therapies (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib 5 mg, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab intravenous). The annual vedolizumab SC cost per patient was reduced vs ustekinumab SC, tofacitinib 5 mg, vedolizumab intravenous, and golimumab SC by $47,024, $3251, $2120, and $2004 (Canadian dollars), respectively, and exceeded that of infliximab, adalimumab, and conventional therapy by $582, $3293, and $41,024, respectively. Among the treatments, vedolizumab SC generated the highest quality-adjusted life-years overall (14.21), which translated into the best incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained over conventional therapy in the overall population ($109,374) and in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve and anti-tumor necrosis factor-experienced patients ($41,658/$114,287). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional therapy offered the most cost-effective therapeutic option followed by vedolizumab SC. Based on a $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold, vedolizumab was cost effective in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve patients but not the overall population also when compared to conventional therapy.

A dynamic Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Kidney Team at Home intervention in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: The Kidney Team at Home program is an educational intervention aimed at patients with chronic kidney disease to assist them in their choice for kidney replacement therapy. Previous studies have shown that the intervention results in an increase in knowledge and communication on kidney replacement therapy, and eventually in an increase in the number of living donor kidney transplantations. The study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to standard care. METHODS: A dynamic probabilistic Markov model was used to estimate the monetary and health benefits of the intervention in The Netherlands over 10 years. Data on costs and health-related quality of life were derived from the literature. Transition probabilities, prevalence, and incidence rates were calculated using a large national database. An optimistic and a pessimistic implementation scenario were compared to a base case scenario with standard care. RESULTS: In both the optimistic and pessimistic scenario, the intervention is cost-effective and dominant compared to standard care: savings were €108,681,985 and €51,770,060 and the benefits were 1382 and 695 QALYs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The superior cost-effectiveness of the intervention is caused by the superior health effects and the reduction of costs associated with transplantation, and the relatively small incremental costs of the intervention. The favorable findings of this implementation project resulted in national uptake of the intervention in The Netherlands as of 2021. This is the first time a psychosocial intervention has been implemented as part of standard care in a kidney replacement therapy program worldwide.

To What Extent Do Patient Preferences Differ From General Population Preferences?

OBJECTIVES: In some countries including Germany, value sets based on general population preferences are not acceptable for decision-makers in healthcare because the impact of the reference group-general population versus patients-on utility decrements is questioned. The objective of this study was to explore potential differences in patient versus general population health preferences and a way of combining both preferences in economic evaluation. METHODS: EQ-5D-5L general population preferences were available from national value sets in Germany and Spain. Patient preferences were obtained by conducting discrete choice experiments with patients with rheumatism and patients with diabetes mellitus in Germany and Spain using an online panel. The econometric approach was based on the conditional logit framework. Latent values were anchored using the national value sets. RESULTS: A total of 1700 patients (Germany, n = 937; Spain, n = 763) were included in the analysis. In both countries, patients gave more importance to mobility, self-care, or usual activities and less importance to pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression than the general population. The size of these differences was larger in Germany than in Spain. In Germany, preferences reported by both patient groups were more similar than in Spain. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences differ from preferences derived from the general population. In contrast to the general population, patients gave more importance to the functional dimensions than to symptoms in both countries. The extent of the differences depends on the disease and the country. For countries preferring patient preferences, a possible way of incorporating the patient perspective in health state valuation was suggested and needs to be further explored.

Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty in model-based cost-utility analyses is commonly assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Model parameters are implemented as distributions and values are sampled from these distributions in a Monte Carlo simulation. Bootstrapping is an alternative method that requires fewer assumptions and incorporates correlations between model parameters. METHODS: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis comparing oromucosal spray containing delta-9-tetrahidrocannabinol + cannabidiol (Sativex®, nabiximols) plus standard care versus standard spasticity care alone in the management of multiple sclerosis spasticity was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the Belgian healthcare payer perspective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis was implemented using a bootstrap approach to ensure that the correlations present in the source clinical trial data were incorporated in the uncertainty estimates. RESULTS: Adding Sativex® spray to standard care was found to dominate standard spasticity care alone, with cost savings of €6,068 and a quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.145 per patient over the 5-year analysis. The probability of dominance increased from 29% in the first year to 94% in the fifth year, with the probability of QALY gains in excess of 99% for all years considered. CONCLUSIONS: Adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care was found to dominate standard spasticity care alone in the Belgian healthcare setting. This study showed the use of bootstrapping techniques in a Markov model probabilistic sensitivity analysis instead of Monte Carlo simulations. Bootstrapping avoided the need to make distributional assumptions and allowed the incorporation of correlating structures present in the original clinical trial data in the uncertainty assessment.

Health-related quality of life after traumatic brain injury: deriving value sets for the QOLIBRI-OS for Italy, The Netherlands and The United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: The Quality of Life after Brain Injury overall scale (QOLIBRI-OS) measures health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study was to derive value sets for the QOLIBRI-OS in three European countries, which will allow calculation of utility scores for TBI health states. METHODS: A QOLIBRI-OS value set was derived by using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and visual analogue scales (VAS) in general population samples from the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Italy. A three-stage procedure was used: (1) A selection of health states, covering the entire spectrum of severity, was defined; (2) General population samples performed the health state valuation task using a web-based survey with three VAS questions and an at random selection of sixteen DCEs; (3) DCEs were analysed using a conditional logistic regression and were then anchored on the VAS data. Utility scores for QOLIBRI-OS health states were generated resulting in estimates for all potential health states. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 13,623 respondents. The biggest weight increase for all attributes is seen from "slightly" to "not at all satisfied", resulting in the largest impact on HRQoL. "Not at all satisfied with how brain is working" should receive the greatest weight in utility calculations in all three countries. CONCLUSION: By transforming the QOLIBRI-OS into utility scores, we enabled the application in economic evaluations and in summary measures of population health, which may be used to inform decision-makers on the best interventions and strategies for TBI patients.

International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.

The EQ-5D-Y-3L is a generic, health-related, quality-of-life instrument for use in younger populations. Some methodological studies have explored the valuation of children's EQ-5D-Y-3L health states. There are currently no published value sets available for the EQ-5D-Y-3L that are appropriate for use in a cost-utility analysis. The aim of this article was to describe the development of the valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L instrument. There were several research questions that needed to be answered to develop a valuation protocol for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states. Most important of these were: (1) Do we need to obtain separate values for the EQ-5D-Y-3L, or can we use the ones from the EQ-5D-3L? (2) Whose values should we elicit: children or adults? (3) Which valuation methods should be used to obtain values for child's health states that are anchored in Full health = 1 and Dead = 0? The EuroQol Research Foundation has pursued a research programme to provide insight into these questions. In this article, we summarized the results of the research programme concluding with the description of the features of the EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation protocol. The tasks included in the protocol for valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L health states are discrete choice experiments for obtaining the relative importance of dimensions/levels and composite time-trade-off for anchoring the discrete choice experiment values on 1 = Full Health and 0 = Dead. This protocol is now available for use by research teams to generate EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets for their countries allowing the implementation of a cost-utility analysis for younger populations.

A French Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a French value set for the EQ-5D-5L, for academic and clinical research, and for regulatory requirements for price-setting of drugs and medical devices. METHOD: This study used the standardized valuation protocol developed by EuroQol, using computer-assisted personal interview software. A representative sample of 1048 French residents were interviewed by a market research company, under the supervision of the research team. Health states were valued using composite time trade-off and a discrete choice experiment. Modeling was used to create values for the 3125 possible health states. The composite time trade-off data were modeled using a Tobit model with censored observations at -1 and correcting for heteroscedasticity. A conditional logit model was used for the discrete choice results, and both models were combined using a hybrid model. An adjusted hybrid model was tested to correct for imbalance in the sample on age and sex compared with the general population. A comparison with the 3-level (3L) value set was performed. RESULTS: The adjusted model was preferred to comply with the representativeness of the general population. It provided a value set for which all coefficients were logically consistent. Values ranged from - 0.525 to 1. The distribution of values presented a shift towards higher values versus the 3L value set. Ranking of dimensions changed. Pain and discomfort and mobility were the dimensions with the highest potential for disutility compared with mobility and self-care for the 3L instrument. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a value set based on societal preferences of the French population, using an improved descriptive instrument of health-related quality-of-life health states. It will contribute to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analysis in the French context and help stimulate disease-specific quality-of-life references for academic-, institutional-, and industry-promoted studies.

United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using an International Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To derive a US-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using an international, standardized protocol developed by the EuroQol Group. METHODS: Respondents from the US adult population were quota-sampled on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and race. Trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks using the EuroQol Valuation Technology software and routine quality control measures. Data were modeled using a Tobit model for cTTO data, a mixed logit model for DCE data, and a hybrid model that combined cTTO and DCE data. Model performance was compared on the basis of logical ordering of coefficients, statistical significance, parsimony, and theoretical considerations. RESULTS: Of 1134 respondents, 1062, 1099, and 1102 respondents provided useable cTTO, DCE, and cTTO or DCE responses, respectively, on the basis of quality control criteria and interviewer judgment. Respondent demographic characteristics and health status were similar to the 2015 US Census. The Tobit model was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from -0.573 (55 555) to 1 (11 111), with 20% of all predicted health states scores less than 0 (ie, worse than dead). CONCLUSIONS: A societal value set for the EQ-5D-5L was developed that can be used for economic evaluations and decision making in US health systems. The internationally established, standardized protocol used to develop this US-based value set was recommended by the EuroQol Group and can facilitate cross-country comparisons.

Cost-effectiveness of a home-based group educational programme on renal replacement therapies: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment for most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, there are numerous patients who cannot find a living kidney donor. Randomised controlled trials have shown that home-based education for patients with ESRD and their family/friends leads to four times more LDKTs. This educational intervention is currently being implemented in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Supervision and quality assessment are being employed to maintain the quality of the intervention. In this study, we aim to: (1) conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the educational programme and its quality assurance system; (2) investigate the relationship between the quality of the implementation of the intervention and the outcomes knowledge, communication and LDKT activities; and (3) investigate policy implications. METHODS AND DESIGN: Patients with ESRD who do not have a living kidney donor are eligible to receive the home-based educational intervention. This is carried out by allied health transplantation professionals and psychologists across eight hospitals in the Netherlands. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted with a Markov model. Cost data will be obtained from the literature. We will obtain the quality of life data from the patients who participate in the educational programme. Questionnaires on knowledge and communication will be used to measure the outcomes of the programme. Data on LDKT activities will be obtained from medical records up to 24 months after the education. A protocol adherence measure will be assessed by a third party by means of a telephone interview with the patients and the invitees. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained through all participating hospitals. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific presentations. Results of the cost-effectiveness of the educational programme will also be disseminated to the Dutch National Health Care Institute. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL6529.

Handling Data Quality Issues to Estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L Value Set Using a Hybrid Interval Regression Approach.

BACKGROUND: The Spanish five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) valuation study was the first to use the EuroQol Valuation Technology protocol, including composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and discrete choice experiments (DCE). In this study, its investigators noticed that some interviewers did not fully explain the C-TTO task to respondents. Evidence from a follow-up study in 2014 confirmed that when interviewers followed the protocol, the distribution of C-TTO responses widened. OBJECTIVES: To handle the data quality issues in the C-TTO responses by estimating a hybrid interval regression model to produce a Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set. METHODS: Four different models were tested. Model 0 integrated C-TTO and DCE responses in a hybrid model and models 1 to 3 altered the interpretation of the C-TTO responses: model 1 allowed for censoring of the C-TTO responses, whereas model 2 incorporated interval responses and model 3 included the interviewer-specific protocol violations. For external validation, the predictions of the four models were compared with those of the follow-up study using the Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. RESULTS: This stepwise approach to modeling C-TTO and DCE responses improved the concordance between the valuation and follow-up studies (concordance correlation coefficient: 0.948 [model 0], 0.958 [model 1], 0.952 [model 2], and 0.989 [model 3]). We recommend the estimates from model 3, because its hybrid interval regression model addresses the data quality issues found in the valuation study. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol violations may occur in any valuation study; handling them in the analysis can improve external validity. The resulting EQ-5D-5L value set (model 3) can be applied to inform Spanish health technology assessments.

Mix and match. A simulation study on the impact of mixed-treatment comparison methods on health-economic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Decision-analytic cost-effectiveness (CE) models combine many parameters, often obtained after meta-analysis. AIM: We compared different methods of mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) to combine transition and event probabilities derived from several trials, especially with respect to health-economic (HE) outcomes like (quality adjusted) life years and costs. METHODS: Trials were drawn from a simulated reference population, comparing two of four fictitious interventions. The goal was to estimate the CE between two of these. The amount of heterogeneity between trials was varied in scenarios. Parameter estimates were combined using direct comparison, MTC methods proposed by Song and Puhan, and Bayesian generalized linear fixed effects (GLMFE) and random effects models (GLMRE). Parameters were entered into a Markov model. Parameters and HE outcomes were compared with the reference population using coverage, statistical power, bias and mean absolute deviation (MAD) as performance indicators. Each analytical step was repeated 1,000 times. RESULTS: The direct comparison was outperformed by the MTC methods on all indicators, Song's method yielded low bias and MAD, but uncertainty was overestimated. Puhan's method had low bias and MAD and did not overestimate uncertainty. GLMFE generally had the lowest bias and MAD, regardless of the amount of heterogeneity, but uncertainty was overestimated. GLMRE showed large bias and MAD and overestimated uncertainty. Song's and Puhan's methods lead to the least amount of uncertainty, reflected in the shape of the CE acceptability curve. GLMFE showed slightly more uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Combining direct and indirect evidence is superior to using only direct evidence. Puhan's method and GLMFE are preferred.

Valuation and Modeling of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using a Hybrid Approach.

BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D instrument is the most widely used preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaire in cost-effectiveness analysis of health care technologies. Recently, a version called EQ-5D-5L with 5 levels on each dimension was developed. This manuscript explores the performance of a hybrid approach for the modeling of EQ-5D-5L valuation data. METHODS: Two elicitation techniques, the composite time trade-off, and discrete choice experiments, were applied to a sample of the Spanish population (n=1000) using a computer-based questionnaire. The sampling process consisted of 2 stages: stratified sampling of geographic area, followed by systematic sampling in each area. A hybrid regression model combining composite time trade-off and discrete choice data was used to estimate the potential value sets using main effects as starting point. The comparison between the models was performed using the criteria of logical consistency, goodness of fit, and parsimony. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants from the 1000 were removed following the exclusion criteria. The best-fitted model included 2 significant interaction terms but resulted in marginal improvements in model fit compared to the main effects model. We therefore selected the model results with main effects as a potential value set for this methodological study, based on the parsimony criteria. The results showed that the main effects hybrid model was consistent, with a range of utility values between 1 and -0.224. CONCLUSION: This paper shows the feasibility of using a hybrid approach to estimate a value set for EQ-5D-5L valuation data.

A five-year model to assess the early cost-effectiveness of new diagnostic tests in the early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of information about the sensitivity, specificity and costs new diagnostic tests should have to improve early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our objective was to explore the early cost-effectiveness of various new diagnostic test strategies in the workup of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) at risk of having RA. METHODS: A decision tree followed by a patient-level state transition model, using data from published literature, cohorts and trials, was used to evaluate diagnostic test strategies. Alternative tests were assessed as add-on to or replacement of the ACR/EULAR 2010 RA classification criteria for all patients and for intermediate-risk patients. Tests included B-cell gene expression (sensitivity 0.60, specificity 0.90, costs €150), MRI (sensitivity 0.90, specificity 0.60, costs €756), IL-6 serum level (sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.53, costs €50) and genetic assay (sensitivity 0.40, specificity 0.85, costs €750). Patients with IA at risk of RA were followed for 5 years using a societal perspective. Guideline treatment was assumed using tight controlled treatment based on DAS28; if patients had a DAS28 >3.2 at 12 months or later patients could be eligible for starting biological drugs. The outcome was expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (€2014 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and headroom. RESULTS: The B-cell test was the least expensive strategy when used as an add-on and as replacement in intermediate-risk patients, making it the dominant strategy, as it has better health outcomes and lower costs. As add-on for all patients, the B-cell test was also the most cost-effective test strategy. When using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained, the IL-6 and MRI strategies were not cost-effective, except as replacement. A genetic assay was not cost-effective in any strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the B-cell test was consistently superior in all strategies. When performing univariate sensitivity analysis for intermediate-risk patients, specificity and DAS28 in the B-cell add-on strategy, and DAS28 and sensitivity in the MRI add-on strategy had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This early cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that new tests to diagnose RA are most likely to be cost-effective when the tests are used as an add-on in intermediate-risk patients, and have high specificity, and the test costs should not be higher than €200-€300.

EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes.

The time trade-off (TTO) valuation technique is widely used to determine utility values of health outcomes to inform quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculations for use in economic evaluation. Protocols for implementing TTO vary in aspects such as the trade-off framework, iteration procedure and its administration model and method, training of respondents and interviewers, and quality control of data collection. The most widely studied and utilized TTO valuation protocols are the Measurement and Valuation of Health (MVH) protocol, the Paris protocol and the EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT) protocol, all developed by members of the EuroQol Group. The MVH protocol and its successor, the Paris protocol, were developed for valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states. Both protocols were designed for a trained interviewer to elicit preferences from a respondent using the conventional TTO framework with a fixed time horizon of 10 years and an iteration procedure combining bisection and titration. Developed for valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states, the EQ-VT protocol adopted a composite TTO framework and made use of computer technology to facilitate data collection. Training and monitoring of interviewers and respondents is a pivotal component of the EQ-VT protocol. Research is underway aiming to further improve the EuroQol protocols, which form an important basis for the current practice of health technology assessment in many countries.

Cost-Effectiveness Model for Evaluating New Diagnostic Tests in the Evaluation of Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis at Risk of Having Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: New opportunities have emerged for early diagnosis with the arrival of new technologies that assess the impact of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and cytomics on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) risk. This early health technology assessment study assesses the short-term cost effectiveness of 4 add-on diagnostic tests in early inflammatory arthritis patients at risk of RA. METHODS: We modeled 4 diagnostic add-on tests to the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism 2010 RA classification criteria, covering the first year after diagnosis, using Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort data. Sensitivity, specificity, and costs were assigned to the magnetic resonance imaging of hands and feet (sensitivity 0.90, specificity 0.60, cost €756), interleukin-6 (IL-6) serum level test (sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.53, cost €50), B cell-related gene expression (sensitivity 0.60, specificity 0.90, cost €150), and gene assay for RA (sensitivity 0.40, specificity 0.85, cost €750), based on literature and expert opinion. Outcomes were evaluated using the unweighted diagnostic net benefit (UDNB) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in all patients (n = 552), intermediate-risk patients (n = 263), and seronegative patients (n = 329). RESULTS: The highest UDNB was found when using the B cell assay in intermediate-risk patients (43%, ICER €5,314), while the IL-6 test in seronegative patients resulted in the lowest UDNB (-11.4%, ICER €7,650). If a threshold of €20,000 is applied, the B cell assay would be preferred over the other alternatives, with a 78% probability of being cost effective for intermediate-risk patients, 57% for all patients, and 73% for seronegative patients. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic add-on tests favoring specificity over sensitivity with a headroom less than €370 per test are cost effective, with the largest diagnostic benefit occurring in intermediate-risk patients.

Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: the MAPS statement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: 'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards (MAPS) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. METHODS: In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. A two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. RESULTS: From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.

PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR STUDIES MAPPING ONTO PREFERENCE-BASED OUTCOME MEASURES: THE MAPS STATEMENT.

BACKGROUND: "Mapping" onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. METHODS: In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. A two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies, and the biomedical journal editorial community was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. RESULTS: From the initial de novo list of twenty-nine candidate items, a set of twenty-three essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion, and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency. and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time.

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement.

BACKGROUND: 'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. METHODS: In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. RESULTS: From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS Explanation and Elaboration paper. CONCLUSION: It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of the reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.