Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan;16(1):7-17.
doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00598-4. Epub 2022 Oct 10.

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

Affiliations

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

Elena Nicod et al. Patient. 2023 Jan.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. FDA. Orphan Drug Act [Internet]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/industry/designating-orphan-product-drugs-and-biolog...
    1. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Off J Eur Union. 2000;
    1. European Commission. Orphan medicinal products [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 7]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/orphan-medicines_en
    1. Eurordis. About rare diseases [Internet]. [cited 2021 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.eurordis.org/about-rare-diseases
    1. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Measuring and valuing health effects. Methods Econ Eval Heal care. Fourth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 123–80.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources