Table 1.
Child-specific quality-of-life measures
| Medicine (indication) | Age range | Submission (date) | Utility instrument | Source | Use of CUA in decision making | Outcome | Utilities discussed in recommendation? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children only | |||||||
| Rotateq rotavirus vaccine (prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis) | Infants 2, 4, and 6 months | Initial (July 2006) | HUI2 | Literature | The submission was not recommended based on uncertain cost effectiveness, the calculation on the utilities and concern about using parent proxy for the HUI2 values | Not recommended | Yes (Quote 1) |
| Resubmission (November 2006) | HUI2 | As above | The vaccine was recommended for inclusion on the National Immunisation Schedule based on a price reduction that improved cost effectiveness. No changes were made to the calculation of utilities in this resubmission | Recommended | No (Quote 2) | ||
| Children and adults | |||||||
|
Lisdexamfetamine (treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) |
6 years and over including adults | Initial (July 2013) | HUI2 | Literature | The CUA was not considered appropriate by the Committee to compare the two medicines, given that there was no clear additional benefit of the medicine over the comparator. The Committee recommended using a CMA. There were issues with transforming utilities to ‘responder’ and ‘non-responder’ health states, and disutilities were not included in the model | Not recommended | No |
| Resubmission (July 2014) | HUI2 | As above | The re-submission presented a cost-effectiveness analysis, CUA and CMA. The Committee suggested the CMA was the preferred option, and the CUA was not considered in the decision-making process. The submission was recommended based on the CMA, despite some concerns about the clinical claims and economic analyses | Recommended | No | ||
CMA cost-minimisation analysis, CUA cost-utility analysis, HUI2 Health Utility Instrument Mark-2