@article{Zisis2020-ej,
title = {Qualitative comparative analysis of health economic evaluation
guidelines for health technology assessment in European countries},
author = {Konstantinos Zisis and Panagiota Naoum and Kostas Athanasakis},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-01},
journal = {Int J Technol Assess Health Care},
volume = {37},
pages = {e2},
address = {England},
abstract = {OBJECTIVE: To classify, analyze, and compare published guidelines
for economic evaluation within health technology assessment (HTA)
in European countries and highlight differences and similarities.
METHODS: We performed a literature review to identify published
guidance for the conduct and assessment of economic evaluation
studies that are undertaken within the context of HTA processes
in European countries. Organizations and working groups were
identified via the ISPOR, INAHTA, and EUnetHTA databases.
Following the identification of official documents, we performed
a qualitative content analysis to highlight discrepancies or
common practices under the following categories: comparator,
perspective on costs/benefits, time horizon, economic evaluation
method, instrument used for utility measurement, outcome measure,
source for efficacy, modeling, sensitivity analysis, discounting,
and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: A total of
nineteen guidance documents were identified (in English)
providing data for the analysis in nineteen countries. The
comparative content analysis identified common practices in most
countries regarding the approaches to the choice of comparator,
source of data, the preferred economic evaluation method, the
option for a lifetime analytical horizon, discounting, and the
choice of key outcome measure-for which, most countries recommend
the use of the EQ-5D instrument. Differences were mainly found in
the choice of perspective, dealing with uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis, the use of end points, and the required use
of modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The use of economic evaluation
constitutes one of the key pillars of the HTA process in Europe.
Although a methodological convergence has occurred during the
last few years, notable differences still remain.},
keywords = {Economic evaluation; European Union; Guidelines; Health technology assessment},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
OBJECTIVE: To classify, analyze, and compare published guidelines
for economic evaluation within health technology assessment (HTA)
in European countries and highlight differences and similarities.
METHODS: We performed a literature review to identify published
guidance for the conduct and assessment of economic evaluation
studies that are undertaken within the context of HTA processes
in European countries. Organizations and working groups were
identified via the ISPOR, INAHTA, and EUnetHTA databases.
Following the identification of official documents, we performed
a qualitative content analysis to highlight discrepancies or
common practices under the following categories: comparator,
perspective on costs/benefits, time horizon, economic evaluation
method, instrument used for utility measurement, outcome measure,
source for efficacy, modeling, sensitivity analysis, discounting,
and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: A total of
nineteen guidance documents were identified (in English)
providing data for the analysis in nineteen countries. The
comparative content analysis identified common practices in most
countries regarding the approaches to the choice of comparator,
source of data, the preferred economic evaluation method, the
option for a lifetime analytical horizon, discounting, and the
choice of key outcome measure-for which, most countries recommend
the use of the EQ-5D instrument. Differences were mainly found in
the choice of perspective, dealing with uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis, the use of end points, and the required use
of modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The use of economic evaluation
constitutes one of the key pillars of the HTA process in Europe.
Although a methodological convergence has occurred during the
last few years, notable differences still remain.