Are current reporting standards used to describe health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models satisfactory?

Objective The aims of this study were to examine current reporting standards of health state utilities (HSU) using a review of published cost-effectiveness analyses in cardiovascular disease and to explore the impact of variation in model inputs used in these on estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness.

Methods Key health/economics bibliographic databases were searched to identify relevant articles published after 2014. Any narrative or values relating to the HSU used in the model were extracted and reviewed. The HSUs were systematically applied to an existing model to explore the influence of different values on QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results Twenty-four peer-reviewed articles were identified. Only 2 studies referred to a literature review for the HSUs. Most (18 of 24) referenced previously published economic studies (as opposed to the original source) for at least 1 of the HSUs. Only 4 studies referenced the original sources and reported all of the HSUs accurately, and several did not provide all the HSUs. Little information was provided on the methods used to calculate QALYs, for example, the duration of time for acute HSUs, what the baseline HSU was, the method that was used to assign HSUs for subsequent different events, or how constant HSUs for clinical events were combined with age-adjusted baseline values. The huge differences in HSUs used in the studies produced substantial variations in the QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios generated from the cost-effectiveness model.

Conclusion Current standards are poor, and there is a need for greater transparency in reporting the HSUs used in cost-effectiveness models.