A scoping review of the use of minimally important difference of EQ-5D utility index and EQ-VAS scores in health technology assessment.

objectivesEstimates of minimally important differences (MID) can assist interpretation of data collected using patient-reported outcomes (PRO), but variability exists in the emphasis placed on MIDs in health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. This study aimed to identify to what extent information on the MID of a commonly used PRO, the EQ-5D, is required and utilised by selected HTA agencies.

methodsTechnology appraisal (TA) documents from HTA agencies in England, France, Germany, and the US between 2019 and 2021 were reviewed to identify documents which discussed MID of EQ-5D data as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint.

resultsOf 151 TAs utilising EQ-5D as a COA endpoint, 58 (38%) discussed MID of EQ-5D data. Discussion of MID was most frequent in Germany, in 75% (n = 12/16) of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) and 44% (n = 34/78) of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, (IQWiG) TAs. MID was predominantly applied to the EQ-VAS (n = 50), most frequently using a threshold of > 7 or > 10 points (n = 13). G-BA and IQWiG frequently criticised MID analyses, particularly the sources of MID thresholds for the EQ-VAS, as they were perceived as being unsuitable for assessing the validity of MID.

conclusionMID of the EQ-5D was not frequently discussed outside of Germany, and this did not appear to negatively impact decision-making of these HTA agencies. While MID thresholds were often applied to EQ-VAS data in German TAs, analyses were frequently rejected in benefit assessments due to concerns with their validity. Companies should pre-specify analyses of continuous data in statistical analysis plans to be considered for treatment benefit assessment in Germany.