Skip to main content
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 4/2008

01.04.2008 | Original Research Article

The Use of QALY Weights for QALY Calculations

A Review of Industry Submissions Requesting Listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4

verfasst von: Professor Paul A. Scuffham, Jennifer A. Whitty, Andrew Mitchell, Rosalie Viney

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 4/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

QALYs combine survival and health-related quality of life (QOL) into a single index, enabling judgements about the relative value for money of healthcare interventions.

Objective

To investigate the methods used for estimating QALY weights included in submissions by industry for listing of their products on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Study design

Retrospective descriptive review of submissions considered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) 2002–4.

Data sources

The database of submissions considered at PBAC meetings was obtained from the Pharmaceutical Evaluation Section of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Further information on each included submission was obtained in the form of the Pharmaceutical Evaluation Section commentary (expert report) on the submission.

Methods

Submissions to the PBAC over 2002–4 presenting QALYs as an outcome measure were reviewed to identify the methods used to obtain preference-based QALY weights. Information was analyzed according to the approach taken to obtain QALY weights (multi-attribute utility instrument [MAUI], health state valuation [HSV] experiment for scaling the health states, or non-preference-based approach); the population from whom the QALY weights were obtained; the appropriateness of the population for the instrument; the recommendation made by the PBAC; and the main indicated category for use of the pharmaceutical.
The approach and the population were classified as ‘more appropriate’ and ‘less appropriate’. The ‘more appropriate’ approaches were where a MAUI was administered to patients who were currently experiencing the health states being valued, or when an HSV experiment was undertaken in either the general population to value a health state derived from clinical and QOL studies or a population of patients to value their own health state. All other approaches were considered ‘less appropriate’.

Results

MAUIs were used in 39% of approaches reporting QALYs; the most frequently used MAUI was the EQ-5D. HSV experiments were used in 36% of the approaches and generally drawn from the published literature. Non-preference based approaches (24%) included rating scales, mapping transformations and consensus opinions. Responses from patients were used in 58% of the approaches, followed by healthcare professionals and investigators (24% and 9%, respectively). Healthcare professionals and investigators’ responses were frequently used in non-preference-based approaches. Submissions for nervous system, infectious disease and neoplasms disease areas were less likely to have presented QALY weights derived from a ‘more appropriate’ approach. Of the approaches using ‘more appropriate’ populations and techniques, 56% were rejected by the PBAC compared with 66% of those using ‘less appropriate’ approaches.

Conclusions

The variability in the quality of QALY weights is troubling. The PBAC guidelines that applied over the period studied neither encouraged nor discouraged cost-utility analyses and provided only brief guidance on how QALY studies should be conducted. A consistent approach to the application of standard methods should be used when the QALY is used to inform decisions on resource allocation. The new PBAC guidelines released in 2006 provide more extensive guidance on derivation of QALY estimates and are more encouraging of the presentation of cost-utility analysis. MAUIs offer a straightforward approach to obtaining QALY weights, and ideally should be used routinely in relevant comparative randomized trials to assess patients’ health states.
Fußnoten
1
We use the term ‘QALY weight’ to distinguish the weights used to estimate QALYs from the scoring systems commonly used in QOL instruments, such as the Short-Form 36-item health survey (SF-36). The scores for the latter are not based on any direct measurement of individual preferences, and hence there is no indication of strength of preference for different health states, or for the trade-offs individuals may make between dimensions of HR-QOL that contribute to the instrument. Elsewhere, QALY weights are sometimes referred to as utilities or utility weights, and are claimed to have a basis in Von Neumann Morgenstern expected utility. However, QALYs are only a measure of utility if additional strong restrictions are imposed on the utility function.
 
2
A resubmission is a submission that was previously rejected by the PBAC; the sponsor may choose to resubmit to provide additional information and/or make other appropriate amendments. The main reasons for rejections typically include insufficient evidence on the clinical benefit (e.g. from a different target population from that described in the evidence provided), too much residual uncertainty around the clinical benefit or cost-effectiveness estimate, or an unacceptable cost-effectiveness ratio.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Schedule of pharmaceutical benefits for approved pharmacists and medical practitioners. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, 2006 Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Schedule of pharmaceutical benefits for approved pharmacists and medical practitioners. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia, 2006
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bleichrodt H, Diecidue E, Quiggin J. Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model. J Health Econ 2004; 23 (1): 157–171PubMedCrossRef Bleichrodt H, Diecidue E, Quiggin J. Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model. J Health Econ 2004; 23 (1): 157–171PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 April National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004 April
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 82–134 Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 82–134
6.
7.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P. Output measures and valuation in health. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 46–67 Dolan P. Output measures and valuation in health. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 46–67
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? J Health Econ 1999; 18: 681–708PubMedCrossRef Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? J Health Econ 1999; 18: 681–708PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Bleichrodt H, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncert 1997; 15: 107–114CrossRef Bleichrodt H, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncert 1997; 15: 107–114CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Pliskin J, Shephard D, Weinstein M. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operation Res 1980; 28: 206–224CrossRef Pliskin J, Shephard D, Weinstein M. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operation Res 1980; 28: 206–224CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271–292PubMedCrossRef Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271–292PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004 Sep; 42 (9): 851–859PubMedCrossRef Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004 Sep; 42 (9): 851–859PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Brit Med J 1998; 316 (7133): 736–741PubMedCrossRef Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Brit Med J 1998; 316 (7133): 736–741PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Shaw R, Johnson J, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing the Dl valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43 (3): 203–220PubMedCrossRef Shaw R, Johnson J, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing the Dl valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43 (3): 203–220PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002 Feb; 40 (2): 113–128PubMedCrossRef Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002 Feb; 40 (2): 113–128PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: health utilities index mark 2. Med Care 1996 Jul; 34 (7): 702–722PubMedCrossRef Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: health utilities index mark 2. Med Care 1996 Jul; 34 (7): 702–722PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001; 33: 358–370PubMedCrossRef Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001; 33: 358–370PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209–224PubMedCrossRef Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209–224PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist forjudging preference-based measures of health related quality of life. Health Econ 1999; 8: 41–51PubMedCrossRef Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist forjudging preference-based measures of health related quality of life. Health Econ 1999; 8: 41–51PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002 July; 11 (5): 447–456PubMedCrossRef Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002 July; 11 (5): 447–456PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P. The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer A, Newhouse J, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000 Dolan P. The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer A, Newhouse J, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5 (1): 1–30PubMedCrossRef Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5 (1): 1–30PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 503–520PubMedCrossRef Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 503–520PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996 Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam health outcomes study. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 1–9PubMedCrossRef Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam health outcomes study. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 1–9PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Wong J, Bennett W, Koff R, et al. Pretreatment evaluation of chronic hepatitis C: risks, benefits, and costs. JAMA 1998; 280 (24): 2088–2093PubMedCrossRef Wong J, Bennett W, Koff R, et al. Pretreatment evaluation of chronic hepatitis C: risks, benefits, and costs. JAMA 1998; 280 (24): 2088–2093PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–1109PubMedCrossRef George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–1109PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Scuffham P. The assessment of pharmaceuticals for government subsidy in Australia: recent developments. J Med Econ 2007; 10: 163–169CrossRef Scuffham P. The assessment of pharmaceuticals for government subsidy in Australia: recent developments. J Med Econ 2007; 10: 163–169CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2000 Apr 26; 283 (16): 2116–2121PubMedCrossRef Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 2000 Apr 26; 283 (16): 2116–2121PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JC. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving? Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 402–408PubMedCrossRef Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JC. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving? Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 402–408PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, et al. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analysis. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 288–294PubMed Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, et al. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analysis. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 288–294PubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Stein K, Fry A, Round A, et al. What value health? A review of health state values used in early technology assessments for NICE. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 4 (4): 219–228CrossRef Stein K, Fry A, Round A, et al. What value health? A review of health state values used in early technology assessments for NICE. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 4 (4): 219–228CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004; 13: 1203–1210PubMedCrossRef Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004; 13: 1203–1210PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002; 11 (4): 341–353PubMedCrossRef Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002; 11 (4): 341–353PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. A single European currency for EQ-5D health states: results from a six-country study. Eur J Health Econ 2003; 4: 222–231PubMedCrossRef Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. A single European currency for EQ-5D health states: results from a six-country study. Eur J Health Econ 2003; 4: 222–231PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat McGregor M, Caro J. QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (10): 947–952PubMedCrossRef McGregor M, Caro J. QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (10): 947–952PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Vijan S. Should we abandon QALYs as a resource allocation tool? Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (10): 953–954PubMedCrossRef Vijan S. Should we abandon QALYs as a resource allocation tool? Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (10): 953–954PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Use of QALY Weights for QALY Calculations
A Review of Industry Submissions Requesting Listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002–4
verfasst von
Professor Paul A. Scuffham
Jennifer A. Whitty
Andrew Mitchell
Rosalie Viney
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2008
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 4/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826040-00003

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2008

PharmacoEconomics 4/2008 Zur Ausgabe