IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values Used in European Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations for Chronic Hepatitis C: Impact on Cost-Effectiveness Results


  • Ru Han

    (University of Aix-Marseille

  • Clément François

    (University of Aix-Marseille

  • Mondher Toumi

    (University of Aix-Marseille


Background Health state utility values (HSUVs) identified from utility elicitation studies are widely used in pharmacoeconomic evaluations for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and are particularly instrumental in health technology assessment (HTA) evaluations such as those from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Objective The aim of this study was to identify HSUVs used in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) for CHC in Europe and to evaluate the impact of HSUV selection on cost-effectiveness results in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (ICER). Methods A systematic search of pharmacoeconomic evaluations for CHC was updated in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the periods 2012–2017 and 2017–2020. Data on health states, HSUVs, and utility elicitation studies were extracted. The difference in HSUVs of the same health state in different CUAs, and the difference between HSUVs of one health state and of the interlink health state in the same CUAs, were calculated. A quality assessment was performed to evaluate the selection of HSUVs in CUAs. Sets of HSUVs identified were used in a reconstructed CUA model to assess the impact on the ICER. Results Twenty-six CUAs conducted in European countries and referring to 17 utility elicitation studies were included. The difference in HSUVs of the same health state in different CUAs ranged from 0.021 (liver transplant) to 0.468 (decompensated cirrhosis). The difference between HSUVs of one health state and of the interlink health state of the next disease severity level was calculated between the health states of F0–F1/mild and F2–F3/moderate (n = 11, 0.040–0.110), F2–F3/moderate and F4/compensated cirrhosis (n = 18, 0.027–0.130), compensated cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis (n = 22, 0.020–0.100), decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 24, 0.000–0.200), hepatocellular carcinoma and liver transplant in the first year (n = 17, − 0.329 to 0.170) and liver transplant in the first and subsequent years (n = 17, − 0.340 to 0.000). The utility elicitation study selected by most CUAs (n = 11) was recommended as the source of HSUVs, at least for the CUAs conducted in the UK, based on the results of quality assessment. Seven sets of HSUVs were generated to fit the reconstructed model and changed the results of the incremental analysis from being cost effective to not being cost effective (ICER ranging from £2460 to £24,954 per QALY gained), and to being dominated in the UK setting. Conclusions The CUAs for CHC were found to apply to various HSUVs from different utility elicitation studies in the same health state. This variability in HSUVs has the potential to significantly affect ICER and ICER-based reimbursement decisions. A rigorous selection of HSUVs in CUAs to inform healthcare resource allocation is suggested for future studies of CUAs and for guideline development.

Suggested Citation

  • Ru Han & Clément François & Mondher Toumi, 2021. "Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values Used in European Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations for Chronic Hepatitis C: Impact on Cost-Effectiveness Results," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 29-44, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00600-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00600-w

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Scott A. McDonald & Amirah Azzeri & Fatiha Hana Shabaruddin & Maznah Dahlui & Soek S. Tan & Adeeba Kamarulzaman & Rosmawati Mohamed, 2018. "Projections of the Healthcare Costs and Disease Burden due to Hepatitis C Infection under Different Treatment Policies in Malaysia, 2018–2040," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 847-857, December.
    2. Matteo Ruggeri & Federica Romano & Michele Basile & Silvia Coretti & Francesca Romana Rolli & Carlo Drago & Americo Cicchetti, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Early Treatment of Chronic HCV with Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir in Italy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 711-722, October.
    3. Daniëla K van Santen & Anneke S de Vos & Amy Matser & Sophie B Willemse & Karen Lindenburg & Mirjam E E Kretzschmar & Maria Prins & G Ardine de Wit, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Treatment for People Who Inject Drugs and the Impact of the Type of Epidemic; Extrapolating from Amsterdam, the Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Andrew J. Leidner & Harrell W. Chesson & Philip R. Spradling & Scott D. Holmberg, 2017. "Assessing the Effect of Potential Reductions in Non-Hepatic Mortality on the Estimated Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Treatment in Early Stages of Liver Disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 65-74, February.
    5. Miriam Luhnen & Siw Waffenschmidt & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Gloria Hanke, 2016. "Health Economic Evaluations of Sofosbuvir for Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: a Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 527-543, October.
    6. Elamin Elbasha & Jagpreet Chhatwal & Shannon Ferrante & Antoine El Khoury & Pedro Laires, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Boceprevir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 Infection in Portugal," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 65-78, February.
    7. Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    8. Barbara de Graaff & Kwang Chien Yee & Philip Clarke & Andrew Palmer, 2018. "Uptake of and Expenditure on Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for Hepatitis C Treatment in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 495-502, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st February 2021
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-02-01 12:00:03

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    2. Andrea Marcellusi & Raffaella Viti & Loreta A. Kondili & Stefano Rosato & Stefano Vella & Francesco Saverio Mennini, 2019. "Economic Consequences of Investing in Anti-HCV Antiviral Treatment from the Italian NHS Perspective: A Real-World-Based Analysis of PITER Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 255-266, February.
    3. Dina Jankovic & Pedro Saramago Goncalves & Lina Gega & David Marshall & Kath Wright & Meena Hafidh & Rachel Churchill & Laura Bojke, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 377-388, May.
    4. Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People’s Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 39-54, February.
    5. Carsten Hirt & Sergio Iannazzo & Silvia Chiroli & Lisa J. McGarry & Philipp Coutre & Leif Stenke & Torsten Dahlén & Jeffrey H. Lipton, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leuk," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 555-567, August.
    6. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    7. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    8. Yin Liu & Hui Zhang & Lei Zhang & Xia Zou & Li Ling, 2020. "Economic Evaluation of Hepatitis C Treatment Extension to Acute Infection and Early-Stage Fibrosis Among Patients Who Inject Drugs in Developing Countries: A Case of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-13, January.
    9. Stefano Capri, 2013. "The economics of orphan drugs: the case of osteosarcoma treatment," LIUC Papers in Economics 265, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    10. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Muhammad Radzi Abu Hassan & Huan-Keat Chan, 2020. "Comment on: “Projections of the Healthcare Costs and Disease Burden due to Hepatitis C Infection Under Different Treatment Policies in Malaysia, 2018–2040”," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 139-140, February.
    12. Franck Maunoury & Aurore Clément & Chizoba Nwankwo & Laurie Levy-Bachelot & Armand Abergel & Vincent Di Martino & Eric Thervet & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of elbasvir-grazoprevir regimen for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease patients in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Paul Wallace & Elizabeth Murray & Jim McCambridge & Zarnie Khadjesari & Ian R White & Simon G Thompson & Eleftheria Kalaitzaki & Christine Godfrey & Stuart Linke, 2011. "On-line Randomized Controlled Trial of an Internet Based Psychologically Enhanced Intervention for People with Hazardous Alcohol Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-8, March.
    14. Léa Duchesne & Gilles Hejblum & Ndèye Coumba Toure Kane & Richard Njouom & Toni Thomas-d'Aquin & Raoul Moh & Babacar Sylla & Nicolas Rouveau & Alain Attia & Karine Lacombe, 2020. "Model-based cost-effectiveness estimates of testing strategies for diagnosing hepatitis C virus infection in people who use injecting drugs in Senegal," Post-Print hal-02543434, HAL.
    15. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    16. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey Young & Rachel Ibbotson, 2012. "It’s All in the Name, or Is It? The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 31-40, January.
    17. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    18. Irmgard C. Schiller-Frühwirth & Beate Jahn & Marjan Arvandi & Uwe Siebert, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness Models in Breast Cancer Screening in the General Population: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 333-351, June.
    19. Simon, Judit & Anand, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Yeeles, Ksenija & Burns, Tom, 2013. "Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 187-196.
    20. Bram L. T. Ramaekers & Rob Riemsma & Sabine Grimm & Debra Fayter & Sohan Deshpande & Nigel Armstrong & Willem Witlox & Xavier Pouwels & Steven Duffy & Gill Worthy & Jos Kleijnen & Manuela A. Joore, 2019. "Arsenic Trioxide for Treating Acute Promyelocytic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(7), pages 887-894, July.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00600-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.