Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Published in:

01-12-2015 | Original Paper

Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)

Authors: Fan Yang, Titus Lau, Evan Lee, A. Vathsala, Kee Seng Chia, Nan Luo

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 9/2015

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Form 6-dimension (SF-6D) instruments in assessing patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Singapore.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study, ESRD patients attending a tertiary hospital were interviewed using a battery of questionnaires including the EQ-5D-5L, the kidney disease quality of life instrument (KDQOL-36), and questions assessing dialysis history and socio-demographic characteristics. We reviewed patients’ medical records for their clinical information. We assessed the construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores and compared their ability to distinguish between patients differing in health status and the magnitude of between-group difference they quantified.

Results

One hundred and fifty ESRD patients on dialysis (mean age, 60.1 years; female, 48.7 %) participated in the study. Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D demonstrated satisfactory known-groups validity; the EQ-5D-5L was more sensitive to differences in clinical outcomes and the SF-6D was more sensitive to differences in health outcomes measured by KDQOL scales. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the measures was 0.36. The differences in the EQ-5D-5L index score for patients in better and worse health status were greater than those measured by the SF-6D index score.

Conclusions

Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D are valid instruments for assessing ESRD patients. However, the two preference-based measures cannot be used interchangeably and it appears that EQ-5D-5L would lead to more favorable cost-effectiveness results than SF-6D if they are used in economic evaluations of interventions for ESRD.

Dolan, P.: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35(11), 1095–1108 (1997)CrossRefPubMed

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21(2), 271–292 (2002)CrossRefPubMed

Conner-Spady, B., Suarez-Almazor, M.E.: Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med. Care 41(7), 791–801 (2003). doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000068537.83456.36 CrossRefPubMed

Xie, F., Li, S.C., Luo, N., Lo, N.N., Yeo, S.J., Yang, K.Y., Fong, K.Y., Thumboo, J.: Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthr. Rheum. 57(6), 1043–1049 (2007). doi:10.1002/art.22883 CrossRef

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13(9), 873–884 (2004). doi:10.1002/hec.866 CrossRefPubMed

Cunillera, O., Tresserras, R., Rajmil, L., Vilagut, G., Brugulat, P., Herdman, M., Mompart, A., Medina, A., Pardo, Y., Alonso, J., Brazier, J., Ferrer, M.: Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual. Life Res. 19(6), 853–864 (2010). doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9639-z CrossRefPubMed

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. 14(11), 1169–1189 (2005). doi:10.1002/hec.1006 CrossRefPubMed

Luo, N., Wang, P., Fu, A.Z., Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J.: Preference-based SF-6D scores derived from the SF-36 and SF-12 have different discriminative power in a population health survey. Med. Care 50(7), 627–632 (2012). doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824d7471 CrossRefPubMed

Barton, G.R., Bankart, J., Davis, A.C., Summerfield, Q.A.: Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision : results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3(2), 103–105 (2004)CrossRefPubMed

10.

Longworth, L., Bryan, S.: An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 12(12), 1061–1067 (2003). doi:10.1002/hec.787 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Lee, A.J., Morgan, C.L., Conway, P., Currie, C.J.: Characterisation and comparison of health-related quality of life for patients with renal failure. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 21(11), 1777–1783 (2005). doi:10.1185/030079905X65277 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Manns, B.J., Johnson, J.A., Taub, K., Mortis, G., Ghali, W.A., Donaldson, C.: Dialysis adequacy and health related quality of life in hemodialysis patients. ASAIO J. 48(5), 565–569 (2002)CrossRefPubMed

13.

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 3(2), 91–102 (2004)CrossRefPubMed

14.

Rajan, M., Lai, K.C., Tseng, C.L., Qian, S., Selim, A., Kazis, L., Pogach, L., Sinha, A.: Estimating utilities for chronic kidney disease, using SF-36 and SF-12-based measures: challenges in a population of veterans with diabetes. Qual. Life Res. 22(1), 53–64 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0139-1 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Janssen, M.F., Birnie, E., Bonsel, G.J.: Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual. Life Res. 17(3), 463–473 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9318-5 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Janssen, M.F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J.A., Bonsel, G.J.: Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11(2), 275–284 (2008). doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Sullivan, P.W., Ghushchyan, V.: Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Decis. Mak 26(4), 410–420 (2006). doi:10.1177/0272989X06290495 CrossRef

18.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., Badia, X.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

19.

Pickard, A.S., De Leon, M.C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., Rosenbloom, S.: Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med. Care 45(3), 259–263 (2007). doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kim, S.H., Kim, H.J., Lee, S.I., Jo, M.W.: Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual. Life Res. 21(6), 1065–1073 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Agborsangaya, C.B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., Johnson, J.A.: Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12, 74 (2014). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-12-74 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

22.

Di Iorio, B., Cillo, N., Cirillo, M., De Santo, N.G.: Charlson Comorbidity Index is a predictor of outcomes in incident hemodialysis patients and correlates with phase angle and hospitalization. Int. J. Artif. Organs 27(4), 330–336 (2004)PubMed

23.

Rabin, R., de Charro, F.: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann. Med. 33(5), 337–343 (2001). doi:10.3109/07853890109002087 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lee, C.F., Nan, L., Ng, R., Wong, N.S., Yap, Y.S., Lo, S.K., Chia, W.K., Yee, A., Krishna, L., Wong, C., Goh, C., Cheung, Y.B.: Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy—Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients. Qual. Life Res. 22(7), 1745–1751 (2012)CrossRefPubMed

25.

Wong, K.Y., How, H.C., Thumboo J., Shen, L., Tay, E.G., Luo, N.: Testing the equivalence of the label wording for EQ-5D-5L responses options across different languages in Singapore. Paper presented at the ISPOR 5th Asia-Pacific conference, Taipei International Convention Center, Taipei, Taiwan, 2–4 Sept 2012

26.

van Hout, B., Janssen, M.F., Feng, Y.S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., Pickard, A.S.: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15(5), 708–715 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kalantar-Zadeh, K., Unruh, M.: Health related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 37(2), 367–378 (2005). doi:10.1007/s11255-004-0012-4 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Yang, F., Wang, V.W., Joshi, V.D., Lau, T.W., Luo, N.: Validation of the English version of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life questionnaire (KDQOL-36) in haemodialysis patients in Singapore. Patient 6(2), 135–141 (2013). doi:10.1007/s40271-013-0015-2 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med. Care 42(9), 851–859 (2004)CrossRefPubMed

30.

Wee, H.L., Cheung, Y.B., Fong, K.Y., Luo, N., Machin, D., Thumboo, J.: Are English- and Chinese-language versions of the SF-6D equivalent? A comparison from a population-based study. Clin. Ther. 26(7), 1137–1148 (2004)CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G.: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476), 307–310 (1986)CrossRefPubMed

32.

Fayers, Peter M., M, D.: Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England (2007)CrossRef

33.

Luo, N., Johnson, J.A., Shaw, J.W., Feeny, D., Coons, S.J.: Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Med. Care 43(11), 1078–1086 (2005)CrossRefPubMed

34.

Molsted, S., Prescott, L., Heaf, J., Eidemak, I.: Assessment and clinical aspects of health-related quality of life in dialysis patients and patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephron. Clin. Pract. 106(1), C24–C33 (2007). doi:10.1159/000101481 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)

36.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., Day, N.A.: A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann. Med. 33(5), 358–370 (2001)CrossRefPubMed

37.

van Stel, H.F., Buskens, E.: Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 4, 20 (2006). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-20 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

38.

Sorensen, J., Linde, L., Ostergaard, M., Hetland, M.L.: Quality-adjusted life expectancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis—comparison of index scores from EQ-5D, 15D, and SF-6D. Value Health 15(2), 334–339 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.09.010 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Obradovic, M., Lal, A., Liedgens, H.: Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 11, 110 (2013). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-110 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

40.

Barton, G.R., Sach, T.H., Avery, A.J., Doherty, M., Jenkinson, C., Muir, K.R.: Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff. Resour Alloc. 7, 12 (2009). doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-12 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

41.

Adams, R., Walsh, C., Veale, D., Bresnihan, B., FitzGerald, O., Barry, M.: Understanding the relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and disease activity in inflammatory arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 28(6), 477–487 (2010). doi:10.2165/11533010-000000000-00000 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Sach, T.H., Barton, G.R., Jenkinson, C., Doherty, M., Avery, A.J., Muir, K.R.: Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Med. Care 47(8), 889–894 (2009). doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a39428 CrossRefPubMed

43.

McDonough, C.M., Tosteson, A.N.: Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 25(2), 93–106 (2007)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

44.

Stavem, K., Froland, S.S., Hellum, K.B.: Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual. Life Res. 14(4), 971–980 (2005)CrossRefPubMed

45.

Harrison, M.J., Davies, L.M., Bansback, N.J., McCoy, M.J., Verstappen, S.M., Watson, K., Symmons, D.P.: The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual. Life Res. 18(9), 1195–1205 (2009). doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9539-2 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

46.

EuroQolGroup. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/valuation-of-eq-5d/eq-5d-5l-value-sets.html

Title: Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)
Authors: Fan Yang
Titus Lau
Evan Lee
A. Vathsala
Kee Seng Chia
Nan Luo
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

Values for health states with different life durations

An examination of the relationships between service use and alternative measures of obesity among community-dwelling adults in Ireland

Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C

Endogenous risk-taking and physical appearance of sex workers

Some economics on personalized and predictive medicine

Methodological challenges in assessing the impact of comorbidities on costs in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials