Assessing the Content Validity of Preference-Based Measures in Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications. METHODS: Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods. RESULTS: Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items.

A Methodological Study to Compare Alternative Modes of Administration With Value EQ-5D Using Preference-Elicitation Techniques.

OBJECTIVES: Time trade-off (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference-elicitation techniques can be administered using face-to-face interviews (F2F), unassisted online (UO) surveys, or remote-assisted (RA) interviews. The objective of this study was to explore how the mode of administration affects the quality and reliability of preference-elicitation data. METHODS: EQ-5D-5L health states were valued using composite TTO (cTTO) and DCE approaches by the UK general population. Participants were allocated to 1 of 2 study groups. Group A completed both F2F and UO surveys (n = 271), and group B completed both RA and UO surveys (n = 223). The feasibility of survey completion and the reliability and face-validity of data collected were compared across all modes of administration. RESULTS: Fewer participants reported receiving sufficient guidance on the cTTO tasks during the UO survey compared with the 2 assisted modes. Participants across all modes typically reported receiving sufficient guidance on the DCE tasks. cTTO data were less reliable from the UO survey compared with both assisted modes, but there were no differences in DCE data reliability. cTTO data from all modes demonstrated face-validity; however, the UO survey produced higher utilities for moderate and severe health states than both assisted modes. Both F2F and RA modes provided comparably reliable data. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of DCE data is not affected by the mode of administration. Interviewer-assisted modes of administration (F2F or RA) yield more reliable cTTO data than unassisted surveys. Both F2F and RA surveys produced similar-quality data.

A scoping review of the use of minimally important difference of EQ-5D utility index and EQ-VAS scores in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Estimates of minimally important differences (MID) can assist interpretation of data collected using patient-reported outcomes (PRO), but variability exists in the emphasis placed on MIDs in health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. This study aimed to identify to what extent information on the MID of a commonly used PRO, the EQ-5D, is required and utilised by selected HTA agencies. METHODS: Technology appraisal (TA) documents from HTA agencies in England, France, Germany, and the US between 2019 and 2021 were reviewed to identify documents which discussed MID of EQ-5D data as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint. RESULTS: Of 151 TAs utilising EQ-5D as a COA endpoint, 58 (38%) discussed MID of EQ-5D data. Discussion of MID was most frequent in Germany, in 75% (n = 12/16) of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) and 44% (n = 34/78) of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, (IQWiG) TAs. MID was predominantly applied to the EQ-VAS (n = 50), most frequently using a threshold of > 7 or > 10 points (n = 13). G-BA and IQWiG frequently criticised MID analyses, particularly the sources of MID thresholds for the EQ-VAS, as they were perceived as being unsuitable for assessing the validity of MID. CONCLUSION: MID of the EQ-5D was not frequently discussed outside of Germany, and this did not appear to negatively impact decision-making of these HTA agencies. While MID thresholds were often applied to EQ-VAS data in German TAs, analyses were frequently rejected in benefit assessments due to concerns with their validity. Companies should pre-specify analyses of continuous data in statistical analysis plans to be considered for treatment benefit assessment in Germany.

A time trade-off study to determine health-state utilities of transplant recipients with refractory cytomegalovirus infection with or without resistance.

BACKGROUND: Health-state utility values (HSUVs) for post-transplant refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (with or without resistance [R/R]) were determined using a time trade-off (TTO) survey completed by 1,020 members of the UK general public. METHODS: Existing literature and qualitative interviews with clinicians experienced in treating R/R CMV were used to develop initial draft vignettes of health states. The vignettes were refined to describe three clinical states of R/R CMV: clinically significant and symptomatic (CS-symptomatic CMV); clinically significant and asymptomatic (CS-asymptomatic CMV); and non-clinically significant (non-CS CMV). Each clinical state was valued independently and combined with three events of interest: graft-versus-host disease; kidney graft loss; and lung graft loss to generate twelve vignettes. The final vignettes were evaluated by a sample of the UK general public using an online TTO survey. Exclusion criteria were applied to the final data to ensure that responses included in the analysis met pre-defined quality control criteria. RESULTS: Overall, 738 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The sample was representative of the UK general population in terms of age and sex. Non-CS CMV had the highest mean HSUV (95% confidence interval) (0.815 [0.791, 0.839]), followed by CS-asymptomatic CMV (0.635 [0.602, 0.669]), and CS-symptomatic CMV (0.443 [0.404, 0.482]). CS-symptomatic CMV with lung graft loss had the lowest mean HSUV (0.289), with none of the health states considered on average worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: Post transplant R/R CMV has substantial impact on the health-related quality of life of patients. The utility values obtained in this study may be used to support economic evaluations of therapies for R/R CMV infection.

Health-related quality of life in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the UK: a cross-sectional study from pre- to post-infection.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time among individuals in the United Kingdom, adding to the evidence base that had focussed on severe COVID-19. METHODS: A bespoke online survey was administered to individuals who self-reported a positive COVID-19 test. An amended version of a validated generic HRQoL instrument (EQ-5D-5L) was used to measure HRQoL retrospectively at different timepoints over the course of an infection: pre-COVID-19, acute COVID-19, and long COVID. In addition, HRQoL post-COVID-19 was captured by the original EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. A mixed-effects model was used to estimate changes in HRQoL over time, adjusted for a range of variables correlated with HRQoL. RESULTS: The study recruited 406 participants: (i) 300 adults and 53 adolescents with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who had not been hospitalised for COVID-19 during acute COVID-19, and (ii) 53 adults who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 in the acute phase and who had been recruited for validation purposes. Data were collected between January and April 2022. Among participants included in the base-case analysis, EQ-5D-5L utility scores were lower during both acute COVID-19 (ß=-0.080, p = 0.001) and long COVID (ß=-0.072, p < 0.001) compared to pre COVID-19. In addition, EQ-5D-5L utility scores post-COVID-19 were found to be similar to the EQ-5D-5L utility scores before COVID-19, including for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID. Moreover, being hospitalised in the acute phase was associated with additional utility decrements during both acute COVID-19 (ß=-0.147, p = 0.026) and long (ß=-0.186, p < 0.001) COVID. CONCLUSION: Patients perceived their HRQoL to have varied significantly over the course of a mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection. However, HRQoL was found to return to pre-COVID-19 levels, even for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID.

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Prospective Multi-center UK Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is unclear whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is impaired in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) without advanced fibrosis and how this compares with the general population. We aimed to assess HRQoL in patients with NAFLD in comparison to the general population and any associations of fibrosis severity and metabolic comorbidities with impairments in HRQoL. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 513 consecutive patients with NAFLD who completed the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaires (CLDQ). Demographic and clinical information, liver biopsy results, and/or liver stiffness (LS) by transient elastography were recorded. A general population sub-cohort of the Health Survey for England 2018 was used as a comparator (n = 5483), and a 1:1 propensity-score (PS) matching was performed, according to age, sex, body mass index, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). RESULTS: EQ-5D-5L utility was significantly lower in 466 PS-matched patients with NAFLD compared with PS-matched controls (0.77 ± 0.27 vs 0.84 ± 0.19; P < .001), even in those without advanced fibrosis (F ≤2 or LS <8kPa) (0.80 ± 0.24 vs 0.84 ± 0.19; P = .024). HRQoL measures (EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, CLDQ) did not differ between patients with NAFLD with and without advanced fibrosis. LS was independently associated with lower EQ-5D-5L in all patients with NAFLD but not in those without advanced fibrosis. In the latter, lower EQ-5D-5L was associated with female sex, T2DM, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NAFLD, even those without advanced fibrosis, have worse HRQoL compared with the general population. In patients with NAFLD without advanced fibrosis, HRQoL is independently associated with non-liver comorbidities but not LS. Multi-disciplinary management is therefore required in NAFLD, irrespective of fibrosis severity.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Technologies: Data Requirements and Challenges.

Governments and health technology assessment agencies are putting greater focus on and efforts in understanding and addressing health inequities. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to evaluate the costs and health gains of different interventions to inform the decision-making process on funding of new treatments. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is an extension of cost-effectiveness analysis that quantifies the equity impact of funding new treatments. Key challenges for the routine and consistent implementation of DCEA are the lack of clearly defined equity concerns from decision makers and endorsed measures to define equity subgroups and the availability of evidence that allows analysis of differences in data inputs associated with the equity characteristics of interest. In this article, we detail the data gaps and challenges to build robust DCEA analysis routinely in health technology assessment and suggest actions to overcome these hurdles.

UK Valuation of EQ-5D-5L, a Generic Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life: A Study Protocol.

OBJECTIVES: A high-quality and widely accepted UK EQ-5D-5L value set is urgently required to enable the latest version of EQ-5D scored using recent UK public preferences to inform policy including health technology assessments submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This article outlines the study protocol for the generation of a new EQ-5D-5L UK value set. METHODS: Twelve hundred interviews will be undertaken using the composite time trade-off elicitation technique for 102 health states (86 from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol, plus 16 with best predictive performance in an extended design used in the Native American EQ-5D-5L valuation). The sample will be UK adults (age ≥18 years) proportionately representative across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, representative for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic group, with inclusion of participants with/without health problems. Participants will choose to be interviewed via videoconference (by Zoom) or in-person in a central venue. Data quality will be rigorously assessed. RESULTS: The value set will be generated using tobit random effects and heteroscedastic tobit models (with censoring at -1) using all data, excluding time trade-off values highlighted by participants as ones they would reconsider and data from interviewers failing protocol compliance. Quality and acceptance will be achieved by public involvement, regular Steering Group meetings, independent assessment of data quality at 4 time points, and final endorsement of data and analyses. CONCLUSION: This study will produce a UK value set for the EQ-5D-5L for use in prospective and retrospective data sets containing EQ-5D-5L data.

An Analysis of 5-Level Version of EQ-5D Adjusting for Treatment Switching: The Case of Patients With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor T790M-Positive Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Osimertinib.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment switching from control to treatment after disease progression is common in oncology trials. Analyses of survival data typically adjust for this bias, but such adjustments are rarely performed in analyses of patient-reported outcomes. This analysis aimed to examine the impact of adjusting for treatment switching on estimated treatment effects on 5-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The AURA3 trial (NCT02151981) was a randomized controlled trial comparing osimertinib with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (standard care) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor mutant- and T790M-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer whose disease has progressed with previous epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Descriptive analyses were used to compare treatment arms. The primary analysis used a 2-stage least squares instrumental variable regression to estimate treatment effect adjusting for treatment crossover. Time to deterioration, defined from baseline to minimally important deterioration in EQ-5D-5L utility, was assessed using a rank preserving structural failure time model. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis of imputed data showed incremental QALYs for osimertinib of 0.23 at 60 weeks. Accounting for treatment switching increased this to 0.52 in the primary analysis and to 0.63 QALYs in sensitivity analysis at 150 weeks. Time to deterioration analysis showed longer health-related quality of life maintenance with osimertinib, of 12.76 weeks, although this was at the borderline of statistical significance (acceleration factor, ψ = -0.275; 95% confidence interval -0.50 to 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates methods to adjust for treatment switching in the analysis of EQ-5D-5L from clinical trials. Failure to account for crossover substantially underestimated the QALY gain for osimertinib.

Use of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: Results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus relevant comparators for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumours located in the gastrointestinal tract (GI-NETs) and the pancreas (P-NETs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care (high dose Octreotide LAR), everolimus and sunitinib. Effectiveness data for SoC, everolimus and sunitinib were obtained from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Given a lack of head-to-head effectiveness data, matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were performed to population-adjust [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE survival data based on prognostic factors and derive estimates of relative effectiveness. Health state utilities were estimated from real-world evidence. Drug acquisition costs were taken from nationally published sources (BNF, NICE), and administration costs were based on treatment protocols in [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE studies, combined with nationally published unit costs (PSSRU, DoH reference costs). Incidence of adverse events were estimated using published sources. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both utilities and costs, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were included from an NHS perspective and presented in 2017/18 GBP (and PPP Euros for base case). RESULTS: In GI-NETs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC and everolimus was £26,528 (€27,672) and £24,145 (€25,186) per QALY, respectively. In P-NETs, the ICER of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC was £22,146 (€23,101) or £28,038 (€29,251) dependent on matched population, and £21,827 (€22,766) and £15,768 (€16,445) compared to everolimus and sunitinib, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000, [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for GI-NET and P-NET patients versus relevant treatment comparators (NHS perspective).

The cardiac output optimisation following liver transplant (COLT) trial: a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative goal directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has been shown to reduce postoperative complications following major surgery; this intervention has not been formally evaluated in the setting of liver transplantation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective trial of GDFT following liver transplantation randomising patients with liver cirrhosis to either 12 h of GDFT using non-invasive cardiac output monitoring or standard care (SC). The primary outcome was feasibility. Secondary outcomes included survival, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo), quality of life (by EQ-5D-5L) and resource use. Trial specific follow up occurred at 90 and 180 days after surgery. RESULTS: The study was feasible. Of 224 eligible patients, 122 were approached, 114 consented to participate and 60 were enrolled into the trial. The mean (SD) volume of IV crystalloid administered to the GDFT group during the 12-h study period was 3968 (2073) ml for the GDFT group and 2510 (1026) ml for the SC group. As regards secondary outcomes there was no difference in survival or overall complication rates. There was no significant difference in quality of life scores and resource use between the groups. CONCLUSION: A randomised study of GDFT following liver transplantation is feasible. A post-trial stakeholder meeting supported proceeding with a full multi-centre trial.

Referral pathways for patients with NAFLD based on non-invasive fibrosis tests: Diagnostic accuracy and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Non-invasive fibrosis tests (NITs) can be used to triage non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients at risk of advanced fibrosis (AF). We modelled and investigated the diagnostic accuracy and costs of a two-tier NIT approach in primary care (PC) to inform secondary care referrals (SCRs). METHODS: A hypothetical cohort of 1,000 NAFLD patients with a 5% prevalence of AF was examined. Three referral strategies were modelled: refer all patients (Scenario 1), refer only patients with AF on NITs performed in PC (Scenario 2) and refer those with AF after biopsy (Scenario 3). Patients in Scenarios 1 and 2 would undergo sequential NITs if their initial NIT was indeterminate (FIB-4 followed by Fibroscan®, enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF)® or FibroTest®). The outcomes considered were true/false positives and true/false negatives with associated mortality, complications, treatment and follow-up depending on the care setting. Decision curve analysis was performed, which expressed the net benefit of different scenarios over a range of threshold probabilities (Pt). RESULTS: Sequential use of NITs provided lower SCR rates and greater cost savings compared to other scenarios over 5 years, with 90% of patients managed in PC and cost savings of over 40%. On decision curve analysis, FIB-4 plus ELF was marginally superior to FIB-4 plus Fibroscan at Pt ≥8% (1/12.5 referrals). Below this Pt, FIB-4 plus Fibroscan had greater net benefit. The net reduction in SCRs was similar for both sequential combinations. CONCLUSIONS: The sequential use of NITs in PC is an effective way to rationalize SCRs and is associated with significant cost savings.

Can Social Care Needs and Well-Being Be Explained by the EQ-5D? Analysis of the Health Survey for England.

BACKGROUND: The recent shift to an integrated approach to health and social care aims to provide cohesive support to those who are in need of care, but raises a challenge for resource allocation decision making, in particular for comparison of diverse benefits from different types of care across the two sectors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship of social care needs and well-being with a generic health status measure using multivariate regression. METHODS: We empirically compared responses to health and well-being measures and social care needs from a cross-sectional data set of the general population (the Health Survey for England). Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to examine whether social care needs measured by the Barthel index can be explained by health status as captured by the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) and two well-being measures-the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). RESULTS: Our study found that poor overall scores for EuroQol visual analogue scale, EQ-5D index, GHQ-12, and WEMWBS indicated a need for social care. Investigation of the dimensions found that the EQ-5D dimensions self-care and pain/discomfort were statistically significantly associated with the need for social care. Two dimensions of the WEMWBS ("been feeling useful" and "had energy to spare") were statistically significantly associated with the Barthel index, but none of the GHQ-12 dimensions were. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the need for social care, which is dependent on the ability to perform personal day-to-day activities, is more closely related to the EQ-5D dimensions than the well-being measures WEMWBS and GHQ-12.

Generating EQ-5D-3L Utility Scores from the Dermatology Life Quality Index: A Mapping Study in Patients with Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an algorithm to predict the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) utility scores from the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in psoriasis. METHODS: This mapping study used data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register-a pharmacovigilance register comprising patients with moderate to severe psoriasis on systemic therapies. Conceptual overlap between the EQ-5D-3L and DLQI was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficients and exploratory factor analysis. Six regression methods to predict the EQ-5D-3L index (direct mapping) and two regression methods to predict EQ-5D-3L domain responses (response mapping) were tested. Random effects models were explored to account for repeated observations from the same individual. Estimated and actual EQ-5D-3L utility scores were compared using 10-fold cross-validation (in-sample) to evaluate predictive performance. Final models were selected using root mean squared error, mean absolute error, and mean error. RESULTS: The data set comprised 22,085 observations for which DLQI and EQ-5D-3L were recorded on the same day. A moderate correlation was found between the measures (r = -0.47). Exploratory factor analysis showed that two EQ-5D-3L domains (pain/discomfort and depression/anxiety) were associated with all six DLQI domains. The best-performing model used ordinary least squares with DLQI items, age, and sex as explanatory variables (with squared, cubic, and interaction terms). A tool was produced to allow users to map their data to the EQ-5D-3L, and includes algorithms that require fewer variables (e.g., total DLQI scores). CONCLUSIONS: This study produced mapping algorithms that can generate EQ-5D-3L utility scores from DLQI data for economic evaluations of health interventions for patients with psoriasis.

Training Genetic Counsellors to Deliver an Innovative Therapeutic Intervention: their Views and Experience of Facilitating Multi-Family Discussion Groups.

Innovations in clinical genetics have increased diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of inherited genetic conditions (IGCs). This has led to an increased number of families seeking genetic testing and / or genetic counselling and increased the clinical load for genetic counsellors (GCs). Keeping pace with biomedical discoveries, interventions are required to support families to understand, communicate and cope with their Inherited Genetic Condition. The Socio-Psychological Research in Genomics (SPRinG) collaborative have developed a new intervention, based on multi-family discussion groups (MFDGs), to support families affected by IGCs and train GCs in its delivery. A potential challenge to implementing the intervention was whether GCs were willing and able to undergo the training to deliver the MFDG. In analysing three multi-perspective interviews with GCs, this paper evaluates the training received. Findings suggests that MFDGs are a potential valuable resource in supporting families to communicate genetic risk information and can enhance family function and emotional well-being. Furthermore, we demonstrate that it is feasible to train GCs in the delivery of the intervention and that it has the potential to be integrated into clinical practice. Its longer term implementation into routine clinical practice however relies on changes in both organisation of clinical genetics services and genetic counsellors' professional development.

COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CONTEMPORARY COSTS: AN APPLICATION TO LIVER TRANSPLANTATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

OBJECTIVES: Our study addresses the important issue of estimating treatment costs from historical data. It is a problem frequently faced by health technology assessment analysts. We compared four approaches used to estimate current costs when good quality contemporary data are not available using liver transplantation as an example. METHODS: First, the total cost estimates extracted for patients from a cohort study, conducted in the 1990s, were inflated using a published inflation multiplier. Second, resource use estimates from the cohort study were extracted for hepatitis C patients and updated using current unit costs. Third, expert elicitation was carried out to identify changes in clinical practice over time and quantify current resource use. Fourth, routine data on resource use were obtained from National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT). RESULTS: The first two methods did not account for changes in clinical practice. Also the first was not specific to hepatitis patients. The use of experts confirmed significant changes in clinical practice. However, the quantification of resource use using experts is challenging as clinical specialists may not have a complete overview of clinical pathway. The NHSBT data are the most accurate reflection of transplantation and posttransplantation phase; however, data were not available for the whole pathway of care. The best estimate of total cost, combining NHSBT data and expert elicitation, is £121,211. DISCUSSION: Observational data from routine care are potentially the most reliable reflection of current resource use. Efforts should be made to make such data readily available and accessible to researchers. Expert elicitation provided reasonable estimates.

The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference.

BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D, a generic health status questionnaire that is widely used in health economic evaluation, was recently expanded to the EQ-5D-5L to address criticisms of unresponsiveness and ceiling effect. AIMS: To describe the validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference of the EQ-5D-5L in COPD. METHODS: Study 1: The validity of the EQ-5D-5L utility index and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was compared with four established disease-specific health status questionnaires and other measures of disease severity in 616 stable outpatients with COPD. Study 2: The EQ-5D-5L utility index and EQ-VAS were measured in 324 patients with COPD before and after 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation. Distribution and anchor-based approaches were used to estimate the minimum important difference. RESULTS: There were moderate-to-strong correlations between utility index and EQ-VAS with disease-specific questionnaires (Pearson's r=0.47-0.72). A ceiling effect was seen in 7% and 2.6% of utility index and EQ-VAS. Utility index decreased (worsening health status) with indices of worsening disease severity. With rehabilitation, mean (95% CI) changes in utility index and EQ-VAS were 0.065 (0.047 to 0.083) and 8.6 (6.5 to 10.7), respectively, with standardised response means of 0.39 and 0.44. The mean (range) anchor estimates of the minimum important difference for utility index and EQ-VAS were 0.051 (0.037 to 0.063) and 6.9 (6.5 to 8.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L is a valid and responsive measure of health status in COPD and may provide useful additional cost-effectiveness data in clinical trials.

An Empirical Study of Two Alternative Comparators for Use in Time Trade-Off Studies.

BACKGROUND: Studies to produce value sets for preference-based measures of health require definition of a full health upper anchor if the values are to be used to calculate quality-adjusted life years. Recent value sets derived for the EQ-5D-5L instrument have described the upper anchor as "full health," whereas older valuation studies for the EQ-5D used "best health state" in the descriptive system (11111). It is unclear whether this change could have led to differences in the values obtained. The objective of this study was to assess differences in time trade-off (TTO) valuations using two different comparators (full health and 11111). METHODS: Preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states were elicited from a broadly representative sample of the UK general public. TTO data were collected by using computer-assisted personal interviews. Respondents were randomly allocated to one of two arms, each using a different comparator health state. Respondents completed 10 or 11 TTO valuations and a series of follow-up questions examining their interpretations of the term "full health." RESULTS: Interviews with 443 respondents were completed in 2014. The differences in mean values across arms are mostly small and nonsignificant. The two arms produced data of similar quality. There is evidence of interviewer effects. Health state 11111 was given a value of 1 by 98.2% of the respondents who valued it. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-5L values elicited by using the composite TTO approach are not greatly affected by the use of full health or 11111 as the comparator health state.

Valuing Health Using Time Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods: Does Dimension Order Impact on Health State Values?

BACKGROUND: Health states defined by multiattribute instruments such as the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire with five response levels (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using time trade-off (TTO) or discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods. A key feature of the tasks is the order in which the health state dimensions are presented. Respondents may use various heuristics to complete the tasks, and therefore the order of the dimensions may impact on the importance assigned to particular states. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of different EQ-5D-5L dimension orders on health state values. METHODS: Preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states were elicited from a broadly representative sample of members of the UK general public. Respondents valued EQ-5D-5L health states using TTO and DCE methods across one of three dimension orderings via face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews. Differences in mean values and the size of the health dimension coefficients across the arms were compared using difference testing and regression analyses. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis suggested some differences between the mean TTO health state values across the different dimension orderings, but these were not systematic. Regression analysis suggested that the magnitude of the dimension coefficients differs across the different dimension orderings (for both TTO and DCE), but there was no clear pattern. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that the order in which the dimensions are presented impacts on the coefficients, which may impact on the health state values provided. The order of dimensions is a key consideration in the design of health state valuation studies.

A Comprehensive Algorithm for Approval of Health Technologies With, Without, or Only in Research: The Key Principles for Informing Coverage Decisions.

BACKGROUND: The value of evidence about the performance of a technology and the value of access to a technology are central to policy decisions regarding coverage with, without, or only in research and managed entry (or risk-sharing) agreements. OBJECTIVES: We aim to outline the key principles of what assessments are needed to inform "only in research" (OIR) or "approval with research" (AWR) recommendations, in addition to approval or rejection. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive algorithm to inform the sequence of assessments and judgments that lead to different types of guidance: OIR, AWR, Approve, or Reject. This algorithm identifies the order in which assessments might be made, how similar guidance might be arrived at through different combinations of considerations, and when guidance might change. RESULTS: The key principles are whether the technology is expected to be cost-effective; whether the technology has significant irrecoverable costs; whether additional research is needed; whether research is possible with approval and whether there are opportunity costs that once committed by approval cannot be recovered; and whether there are effective price reductions. Determining expected cost-effectiveness is only a first step. In addition to AWR for technologies expected to be cost-effective and OIR for those not expected to be cost-effective, there are other important circumstances when OIR should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: These principles demonstrate that cost-effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for approval. Even when research is possible with approval, OIR may be appropriate when a technology is expected to be cost-effective due to significant irrecoverable costs.