Benjamin Ruban-Fell, Sari D Wright, Adib Abdullah, Amy Smith, Sheela Upadhyaya, Rebecca van Pelt, Annabel G M Griffiths
{"title":"Utility Studies in Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Benjamin Ruban-Fell, Sari D Wright, Adib Abdullah, Amy Smith, Sheela Upadhyaya, Rebecca van Pelt, Annabel G M Griffiths","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There are challenges associated with generating health-state utility values for rare diseases, leading to a potential lack of standardization in the methods used. This systematic literature review characterized the approaches used to generate utility data in rare diseases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches of MEDLINE/Embase, health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness databases were conducted, supplemented by grey literature searches. Due to the large volume of evidence identified, articles were prioritized for full-text review by applying a 2020 date limit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-seven articles (assessing 56 rare conditions) were included. Nineteen unique health-related quality-of-life tools were identified, 14 of which were generic. Indirect valuation methods were more common than direct (80 vs 43 instances). Among the indirect methods, the preference-based EQ-5D questionnaire was most reported (55 instances), followed by the non-preference-based short-form questionnaires (8 instances). Five disease-specific, non-preference-based questionnaires were reported. Mapping algorithms were used for preference-based and non-preference-based measures, typically mapped to EQ-5D, although challenges with mapping disease-specific tools to preference-based measures were noted. Vignettes were used in 29 articles; however, incomplete reporting on the development process limited the quality assessment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generic, preference-based measures were commonly used to generate utility data in rare diseases among the identified studies, facilitating comparison but potentially limiting sensitivity of results. Development of appropriate and valid disease-specific measures and more transparent/consistent reporting of vignette development, would help ensure that all aspects of health-related quality-of-life impacted by rare diseases are suitably captured, to allow reliable demonstration of the value of treatments to support future reimbursement.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: There are challenges associated with generating health-state utility values for rare diseases, leading to a potential lack of standardization in the methods used. This systematic literature review characterized the approaches used to generate utility data in rare diseases.
Methods: Searches of MEDLINE/Embase, health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness databases were conducted, supplemented by grey literature searches. Due to the large volume of evidence identified, articles were prioritized for full-text review by applying a 2020 date limit.
Results: Ninety-seven articles (assessing 56 rare conditions) were included. Nineteen unique health-related quality-of-life tools were identified, 14 of which were generic. Indirect valuation methods were more common than direct (80 vs 43 instances). Among the indirect methods, the preference-based EQ-5D questionnaire was most reported (55 instances), followed by the non-preference-based short-form questionnaires (8 instances). Five disease-specific, non-preference-based questionnaires were reported. Mapping algorithms were used for preference-based and non-preference-based measures, typically mapped to EQ-5D, although challenges with mapping disease-specific tools to preference-based measures were noted. Vignettes were used in 29 articles; however, incomplete reporting on the development process limited the quality assessment.
Conclusions: Generic, preference-based measures were commonly used to generate utility data in rare diseases among the identified studies, facilitating comparison but potentially limiting sensitivity of results. Development of appropriate and valid disease-specific measures and more transparent/consistent reporting of vignette development, would help ensure that all aspects of health-related quality-of-life impacted by rare diseases are suitably captured, to allow reliable demonstration of the value of treatments to support future reimbursement.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.