IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v28y2010i6p477-487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and Disease Activity in Inflammatory Arthritis

Author

Listed:
  • Roisin Adams
  • Cathal Walsh
  • Douglas Veale
  • Barry Bresnihan
  • Oliver FitzGerald
  • Michael Barry

Abstract

Background: The growth of economic analyses and in particular cost-utility analyses (CUA), which use the QALY as a measure of outcome, has heightened the interest in the methodologies used to calculate the QALY. The EQ-5D has produced quite different utility values from that of the SF-6D. This article seeks to understand these differences using a cohort of patients with inflammatory arthritis. Objective: To examine the relationship between the disease-specific measure, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) and the preference-based measures, SF-6D, EQ-5D and European League Against Arthritis (EULAR) Disease Activity Score (DAS) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: Patients with RA and PsA (n=504) attending a tertiary rheumatology referral centre completed the HAQ, SF-6D and the EQ-5D before starting biological therapy and again 12 months later. The SF-36 was converted into a utility using the preference-based SF-6D. Clinical outcomes such as the DAS, joint counts and laboratory measures were also recorded. We calculated single index utility scores from the preference-based instruments using UK population norms. We used regression analysis to derive a mapping function and calculated utility scores from the HAQDI and the DAS 28. Results: The mean utility observed at baseline for RA was 0.43 for the EQ-5D and 0.54 for the SF-6D and for PsA was 0.49 for the EQ-5D and 0.57 for the SF-6D. The utility gain demonstrated by the EQ-5D was over twice that of the SF-6D. The EQ-5D scored 17% of the RA group as less than 0 (state defined as worse than death); 7% of this group remained less than 0 at followup. The distribution of the utility estimates was similar for both RA and PsA. Conclusions: Our findings draw attention to the impact of states worse than death on the overall distribution for the EQ-5D derived utilities and how these impact on its use in practice. EQ-5D-derived QALY changes are over twice that of the SF-6D. The implication of this for decision makers is that cost-effectiveness evaluations for treatments in this disease class are likely to be very sensitive to the choice of utility measure. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2010

Suggested Citation

  • Roisin Adams & Cathal Walsh & Douglas Veale & Barry Bresnihan & Oliver FitzGerald & Michael Barry, 2010. "Understanding the Relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and Disease Activity in Inflammatory Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 477-487, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:6:p:477-487
    DOI: 10.2165/11533010-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11533010-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11533010-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453, December.
    3. Kharroubi, Samer & Brazier, John E. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1242-1252, March.
    4. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    5. Kharroubi, Samer A. & Brazier, John E. & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 597-612, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nick Kontodimopoulos & Panagiotis Bozios & John Yfantopoulos & Dimitris Niakas, 2013. "Longitudinal predictive ability of mapping models: examining post-intervention EQ-5D utilities derived from baseline MHAQ data in rheumatoid arthritis patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 307-314, April.
    2. Hui Jin & Bei Wang & Qian Gao & Jianqian Chao & Siyuan Wang & Lin Tian & Pei Liu, 2012. "Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D Utility in Rural Residents of Jiangsu Province, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-5, July.
    3. Fan Yang & Titus Lau & Evan Lee & A. Vathsala & Kee Chia & Nan Luo, 2015. "Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 1019-1026, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. O'Hagan, A & Brazier, JE & Kharroubi, SA, 2007. "A comparison of United States and United Kingdom EQ-5D health states valuations using a nonparametric Bayesian method," MPRA Paper 29806, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    3. Samer Kharroubi, 2015. "A Comparison of Japan and UK SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-420, August.
    4. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Weidong Huang & Hongjuan Yu & Chaojie Liu & Guoxiang Liu & Qunhong Wu & Jin Zhou & Xin Zhang & Xiaowen Zhao & Linmei Shi & Xiaoxue Xu, 2017. "Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life of Chinese Adults in Heilongjiang Using EQ-5D-3L," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Méndez, Ildefonso & Abellán Perpiñán, Jose M. & Sánchez Martínez, Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2011. "Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: An illustration using the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1280-1292.
    7. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    8. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    9. Lisa R. Ulrich & Juliana J. Petersen & Karola Mergenthal & Andrea Berghold & Gudrun Pregartner & Rolf Holle & Andrea Siebenhofer, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of case management for optimized antithrombotic treatment in German general practices compared to usual care – results from the PICANT trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Ben F M Wijnen & Bea Hemmen & Ans I E Bouman & Henk van de Meent & Ton Ambergen & Peter R G Brink & Henk A M Seelen & Silvia M A A Evers, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of an integrated 'fast track' rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients: A non-randomized clinical trial in the Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    12. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    13. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    14. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    15. Oscar Andrés Espinosa Acuna, 2020. "Clasificación de estados de salud y metodologías de valoración de preferencias para el cálculo de AVAC: una revisión de literatura," Ensayos de Economía 19137, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.
    16. Nick Kontodimopoulos & Evelina Pappa & Zinovia Chadjiapostolou & Eleni Arvanitaki & Angelos Papadopoulos & Dimitris Niakas, 2012. "Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(1), pages 111-120, February.
    17. Søgaard, Rikke & Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth & Olsen, Jens, 2010. "Methods for cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside trials in spine surgery," DaCHE discussion papers 2010:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    18. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    19. Elizabeth Goodwin & Colin Green, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 161-183, April.
    20. Chen-Wei Pan & Hong-Peng Sun & Hui-Jun Zhou & Qinghua Ma & Yong Xu & Nan Luo & Pei Wang, 2016. "Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes Patients in China," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 234-241, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:28:y:2010:i:6:p:477-487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.