Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 2/2013

01-02-2013 | Original Research Article

Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy

Do Differences in Utility Measures at Baseline Affect the Effectiveness of the Intervention?

Authors: Michela Tinelli, Mandy Ryan, Christine Bond, Anthony Scott

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The generic health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) utility measures the EQ-5D and SF-6D are both commonly used to inform healthcare policy developments. However, their application to pharmacy practice is limited and the optimal method to inform policy developments is unknown.

Objectives

Our objective was to test the sensitivity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D within pharmacy when measuring whether changes in health status or other co-variates at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention at follow-up. A further objective was to consider the implications of the findings for pharmacy research and policy.

Methods

The EQ-5D and SF-6D utility measures were employed within a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of community pharmacy-led medicines management for patients with coronary heart disease. The intervention covered a baseline visit with the potential for follow-up. Simultaneous quantile regression assessed the impact of the intervention on both EQ-5D and SF-6D measures at follow-up, controlling for baseline health, appropriateness of treatment, personal characteristics and self-reported satisfaction.

Results

No statistically significant difference in HR-QOL across the intervention and control groups at follow-up was reported for either measure. Increased health gain was however associated with the baseline utility score (with the EQ-5D more sensitive for those in worse health) and the appropriateness of treatment, but not patient characteristics or self-reported satisfaction.

Conclusion

Neither generic measure detected a gain in HR-QOL as a result of the introduction of an innovative pharmacy-based service. This finding supports other work in the area of pharmacy, where health gains have not changed following interventions. Disease-specific utility measures should be investigated as an alternative to generic approaches such as the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Given that the RCT found an increase in self-reported satisfaction, broader measures of benefit that value patient experiences, such as contingent valuation and discrete-choice experiments, should also be considered in pharmacy.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
2.
Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976;11:478–507.PubMed
3.
Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7(6):503–20.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Sintonen H. The 15-D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and application. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–36.PubMedCrossRef
5.
The Euroqol Group. Euroqol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef
6.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ. 2004;13:1203–10.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, et al. How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:771–7.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41:791–801.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, et al. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:58–63.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(2):103–5.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Gerard K, Nicholson T, Mullee M, Mehta R, Roderick P. EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(2):91–102.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:15–23.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Tidermark J, Bergstrom G, Svensson O, et al. Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fracture. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1069–79.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lamers LM, Bouwmans CAM, van Straten A, et al. Comparsion of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006;15:1229–36.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003;12:1061–7.PubMedCrossRef
23.
van den Hout WB, de Jong Z, Munneke M, et al. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses of a long-term, high-intensity exercise program compared with conventional physical therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53:39–47.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, et al. Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:616–24.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Xie F, Li SC, Luo N, et al. Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1043–9.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Michaels JA, Brazier JE, Campbell WB, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2006;93:175–81.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:207–19.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Stavem K, Froland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:971–80.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Szende A, Svensson K, Ståhl E, Mészáros A, Berta GY. Psychometric and utility-based measures of health status of asthmatic patients with different disease control level. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(8):537–47.PubMedCrossRef
30.
van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20–9.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Seymour J, McNamee P, Scott A, et al. Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Econ. 2010;19:683–96.PubMed
32.
McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1321–32.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873–84.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Barton G, Sach T, Doherty M, et al. An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D (index), SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9:237–49.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Bharmal M, Thomas J. Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health. 2006;9:262–71.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14:1169–89.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Wee HL, Machin D, Loke WC, et al. Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value Health. 2007;10:256–65.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Bryan S, Longworth L. Measuring health related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? Eur J Health Econ. 2005;50:253–60.CrossRef
39.
Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4016–23.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, et al. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2009;7:12.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA, et al. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:87–97.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Moock J, Kohlmann T. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:485–95.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Chadjiapostolou Z, et al. Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(1):111–20.PubMedCrossRef
44.
McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):93–106.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Simoens S. Economic evaluation of pharmacy practice: research informing policy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2008;16:337–8.CrossRef
46.
The Community Pharmacy Medicines Management Project Evaluation Team. The MEDMAN study: a randomised controlled trial of community pharmacy-led medicines management for patients with coronary heart disease. Fam Pract. 2007;24:189–200.CrossRef
47.
Holland R, Lenaghan E, Harvey I, et al. Does home based medication review keep older people out of hospital? The HOMER randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2005;330:293.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Holland R, Brooksby I, Lenaghan E, et al. Effectiveness of visits from community pharmacists for patients with heart failure: HeartMed randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;334:1098.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Lenaghan E, Holland R, Brooks A. Home-based medication review in a high risk elderly population in primary care: the POLYMED randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2007;36:292–7.PubMedCrossRef
50.
RESPECT Trial Team. Cost-effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for older patients: RESPECT trial findings. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60:20–7.CrossRef
51.
RESPECT Trial Team. Effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for older patients: RESPECT trial findings. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60:10–9.CrossRef
52.
Scott T, Tinelli M, Bond C, Community Pharmacy Medicines Management Evaluation Team. Costs of a community pharmacist-led medicines management service for patients with coronary heart disease in England: healthcare system and patient perspectives. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):397–411.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Pacini M, Smith R, Wilson E, Holland R. Home-based medication review in older people: is it cost effective? Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):171–80.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Etemad LR, Hay JW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical care in a Medicare Drug Benefit Program. Value Health. 2003;6:425–35.PubMedCrossRef
55.
56.
Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2008.
57.
Tinelli M, Watson M, Hannaford P, et al. Development and application of a tool for the assessment of appropriateness of treatment for patients with CHD [abstract]. Int J Pharm Pract. 2005;13(suppl):R41.
58.
Tinelli M, Blenkinsopp A, Bond C, on the behalf of the Community Pharmacy Medicines Management Evaluation Team. Development, validation and application of a patient satisfaction scale for a community pharmacy medicines management service. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19:144–55.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Xie J, Wu EQ, Zheng ZJ, et al. Patient-reported health status in coronary heart disease in the United States: age, sex, racial, and ethnic differences. Circulation. 2008;118:491–7.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, et al. Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. Am J Cardiol. 1984;54:908–13.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Asadi-Lari M, Packham C, Gray D. Patients’ satisfaction and quality of life in coronary artery disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:57–64.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Herrera LJ, Rubio G, Pomares H, Paechter B, Guillén A, Rojas I. Strengthening the forward variable selection stopping criterion. In: Allippi C, editor. Artificial neural networks—ICANN 2009: part II. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p. 215–24.CrossRef
63.
Dowie J. Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Econ. 2002;11:1–8.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Cepeda-Valery B, Cheong AP, Lee A, Yan BP. Measuring health related quality of life in coronary heart disease: the importance of feeling well. Int J Cardiol. 2011;149:4–9.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Wijeysundera HC, Tomlinson G, Norris CM, et al. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in coronary artery disease. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:481–93.PubMedCrossRef
66.
van Mil F. Is Hawthorne bothering pharmaceutical care research? Pharm World Sci. 2003;25:37.PubMed
67.
Hundley V, Ryan M. Willingness to pay and discrete choice experiments: alternatives to satisfaction surveys. Evid Based Midwifery. 2003;1:32–5.
68.
Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness to pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10:39–52.PubMedCrossRef
69.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.
71.
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama K, et al. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ. 2001;20:441–57.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Rose JM, Saini B. Patient preferences for community pharmacy asthma services: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(10):961–76.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Ryan M, Ubach C. Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care. Appl Econ Lett. 2003;10:407–10.CrossRef
74.
Porteous T, Ryan M, Bond C, et al. Preferences for self-care or consulting a health professional for minor illness: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56:911–7.PubMed
75.
Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond C. Patients’ preferences for an increased pharmacist role in the management of drug therapy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17:275–82.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy
Do Differences in Utility Measures at Baseline Affect the Effectiveness of the Intervention?
Authors
Michela Tinelli
Mandy Ryan
Christine Bond
Anthony Scott
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing AG
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-012-0012-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

PharmacoEconomics 2/2013 Go to the issue

Systematic Review

Acknowledging Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation

Review Article

Retigabine for the Adjunctive Treatment of Adults with Partial-Onset Seizures in Epilepsy with and without Secondary Generalization

Correspondence

The Authors’ Reply to Wonder and Milne: “Comparing Subsidized Access to Medicines Across Payer Systems”

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Herpes Zoster Vaccination

Original Research Article

Improving Clinical Reality in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Economic Modelling

Practical Application

Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited