IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Estimating the Relationship between Preference-Based Generic Utility Instruments and Disease-Specific Quality-of-Life Measures in Severe Chronic Constipation: Challenges in Practice

  • Mark Parker

    (University of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool, UK)

  • Alan Haycox

    (University of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool, UK)

  • Jane Graves

    (University of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool, UK)

Background: Many clinical trials that generate evidence on the quality-of-life (QOL) improvements provided by new health technologies do not incorporate a preference-based generic measure, but generate only disease-specific data. However, in order to meet the information needs of regulators such as the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), such disease-specific data need to be converted into a broader generic measure; for NICE, the preferred instrument is the EQ-5D. The process of converting QOL data from one instrument to another is known as 'mapping'. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the extent to which disease-specific measures generated in the clinical trials for a new treatment for chronic constipation (prucalopride) can be 'mapped' onto a preference-based generic measure (EQ-5D and SF-6D) to generate robust and reliable utility estimates. Methods: Disease-specific QOL data generated in the clinical trials of prucalopride (PAC-QOL scores) were converted into utility values estimated using the preference-based generic measure EQ-5D. SF-36 data were also collected in the clinical trials and used to generate SF-6D estimates for comparative purposes. Regression analysis was used to derive a range of mapping functions to identify the extent to which increasing the complexity of the hypothesized underlying mapping function enhanced the robustness and reliability of the obtained mapping relationship. Results: The mean utility observed at baseline for chronic constipation, based on SF-36 data, was 0.813 with the EQ-5D and 0.723 with the SF-6D. An examination of the differences between predicted and observed values generally found that the mapping functions generated were robust and reliable, with little evidence of bias across the range of the dependent variable. However, the nature of the symptoms explored in the PAC-QOL measure was, in general, less severe than those explored in the EQ-5D. For example, the condition-specific measures explored the degree to which patients experienced 'discomfort', rather than 'pain' as evaluated in the EQ-5D. Given this limitation in the severity range covered in the disease-specific measures, it is perhaps not surprising that a 'floor effect' was identified, with certain health dimensions mapping only to the upper range of the EQ-5D measure. Conclusions: In circumstances where direct utility measurement is not available, mapping provides a valuable method by which to estimate utility data for incorporation into cost-effectiveness analyses. Our findings emphasize the importance of the structure and nature of the mapping analysis undertaken as being a fundamental determinant of the utility estimates generated. Unfortunately, the theoretical guidance available to steer such analyses is still comparatively underdeveloped and this remains an area of health economic analysis in which empiricism largely rules. Ensuring that such mapping is undertaken and interpreted in as transparent and robust a manner as possible is therefore crucial in allowing regulators to accurately compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of new drugs across therapeutic areas.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Pay per view

File URL:
Download Restriction: Pay per view

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
Issue (Month): 8 ()
Pages: 719-730

in new window

Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:8:p:719-730
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:8:p:719-730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.