IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i1d10.1007_s40271-022-00598-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Interpretation of Evidence Relating to Quality of Life in Health Technology Assessments of Rare Disease Treatments

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Nicod

    (SDA Bocconi School of Management
    Dolon Ltd)

  • Andrew J Lloyd

    (Acaster Lloyd Consulting Ltd
    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

  • Thomas Morel

    (UCB Pharma
    KU Leuven)

  • Michela Meregaglia

    (SDA Bocconi School of Management)

  • Sheela Upadhyaya

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Amanda Whittal

    (SDA Bocconi School of Management)

  • Karen Facey

    (University of Edinburgh)

  • Michael Drummond

    (University of York, Centre for Health Economics)

Abstract

Rare diseases are often severe, debilitating, life-limiting conditions, many of which occur in childhood. These complex conditions have a wide range of clinical manifestations that have a substantial impact on the lives of patients, carers and families and often produce heterogeneous clinical outcomes. Therefore, the evaluation of quality-of-life (QoL) impacts is important. In health technology assessment (HTA), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and/or health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to determine QoL impacts of new treatments, but their use in rare diseases is challenging due to small and heterogeneous populations and limited disease knowledge. This paper describes challenges associated with the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs)/HSUVs to evaluate QoL in HTA of rare disease treatments (RDTs) and identifies five recommendations to ensure appropriate interpretation of QoL impacts. These were derived from mixed methods research (literature reviews, appraisal document analyses, appraisal committee observations and interviews) examining the use of PROs/HSUVs in HTA of RDTs. They highlight that HTAs of RDTs must (1) understand the QoL impacts of the disease and of treatments; (2) critically assess PRO data, recognising the nuances in development and administration of PROMs/HSUVs, considering what is feasible and what matters most to the patient population; (3) recognise that lack of significant effect on a PRO does not imply no QoL benefit; (4) use different forms of evidence to understand QoL impacts, such as patient input; and (5) provide methodological guidance to capture QoL impacts on patients/carers.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Nicod & Andrew J Lloyd & Thomas Morel & Michela Meregaglia & Sheela Upadhyaya & Amanda Whittal & Karen Facey & Michael Drummond, 2023. "Improving Interpretation of Evidence Relating to Quality of Life in Health Technology Assessments of Rare Disease Treatments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(1), pages 7-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00598-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00598-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00598-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-022-00598-4?utm_source=ideas
    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

    as
    1. Nicod, Elena & Annemans, Lieven & Bucsics, Anna & Lee, Anne & Upadhyaya, Sheela & Facey, Karen, 2019. "HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 140-151.
    2. Adrian Towse;Martina Garau, 2018. "Appraising Ultra-Orphan Drugs: Is Cost-Per-QALY Appropriate? A Review of the Evidence," Consulting Report 001978, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elena Nicod & Michela Meregaglia & Amanda Whittal & Sheela Upadhyaya & Karen Facey & Michael Drummond, 2022. "Consideration of quality of life in the health technology assessments of rare disease treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(4), pages 645-669, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00598-4. 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: http://www.springer.com .

    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.