ReviewHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Approaches used to model patient and carer health-related quality of life in economic models of rare disease treatments in NICE appraisals.
Review in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProviding robust health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evidence for rare disease treatments (RDTs) is difficult due to the challenges involved in generating and interpreting evidence for rare diseases. Our objective was to systematically review the approaches used to model patient and carer HRQoL in economic models in RDT appraisals published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
methodsWe identified appraisals completed between 2011 and 2023 and recorded HRQoL modelling characteristics from appraisal documents, including the approach used to derive the patient health state utility values (HSUVs) used in the final appraisal, and whether and how carer HRQoL was included. We mapped the approaches to estimating patient and carer HRQoL against NICE’s hierarchy of preferred HRQoL methods.
resultsWe identified a total of 111 indications. Overall, we found heterogeneity in the approaches used to model patient and carer HRQoL. Regarding patient HRQoL, EQ-5D data was not available from a relevant study in 59.5% of indications in the final appraisal, and EQ-5D was not deemed appropriate by the committee in 6.3% of indications. EQ-5D from a relevant study was available and used in 34.2% of indications. Various sources of patient utilities were used, including EQ-5D values from a relevant study, estimates from the published literature (EQ-5D or non-EQ-5D), values derived from statistical mapping, vignette studies, or proxy conditions, combinations of several types, or values based on assumptions. Approaches to modelling patient utilities were also discussed in three-quarters of final appraisal documents, suggesting a considerable influence on the final recommendation. The impact on carer HRQoL was included quantitatively in the final appraisal in 26.1% of indications; for 3.6% of indications, the committee considered it qualitatively; and for one indication (0.9%) both quantitatively and qualitatively.
conclusionOur findings suggest that, given the NICE hierarchy, patient and carer HRQoL was not very well captured in RDT appraisals. If the NICE hierarchy is viewed as a taxonomy of possible approaches, our findings also suggest that it does not accommodate some of the approaches used to estimate HRQoL in RDT appraisals. These issues raise questions about the consistency with which HRQoL is modelled and reflect the challenges of generating robust HRQoL evidence for RDTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.