Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Published in:

Open Access 01-02-2019 | Original Paper

Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments

Authors: Fan Yang, Nancy Devlin, Nan Luo

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of EQ-5D data mapped from SF-12 in terms of estimating cost effectiveness in cost-utility analysis (CUA). The comparability of SF-6D (derived from SF-12) was also assessed.

Methods

Incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on two Markov models assessing the cost effectiveness of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) using utility values based on EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D using three direct-mapping algorithms and two response-mapping algorithms (mEQ-5D), and SF-6D. Bootstrap method was used to estimate the 95% confidence interval (percentile method) of incremental QALYs and ICERs with 1000 replications for the utilities.

Results

In both models, compared to the observed EQ-5D values, mEQ-5D values expressed much lower incremental QALYs (range − 14.9 to − 33.2%) and much higher ICERs (range 17.5 to 49.7%). SF-6D also estimated lower incremental QALYs (− 29.0 and − 14.9%) and higher ICERs (40.9 and 17.5%) than did the observed EQ-5D. The 95% confidence interval of incremental QALYs and ICERs confirmed the lower incremental QALYs and higher ICERs estimated using mEQ-5D and SF-6D.

Conclusion

Compared to observed EQ-5D, EQ-5D mapped from SF-12 and SF-6D would under-estimate the QALYs gained in cost-utility analysis and thus lead to higher ICERs. It would be more sensible to conduct CUA studies using directly collected EQ-5D data and to designate one single preference-based measure as reference case in a jurisdiction to achieve consistency in healthcare decision-making.

Available only for authorised users

Weinstein, M.C., Torrance, G., McGuire, A.: QALYs: the basics. Value Health 12(Suppl 1):5–9 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x CrossRef

NICE: NICE Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/the-reference-case#measuring-and-valuing-health-effects (2013). Accessed 15 Aug 2017

CADTH: Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/how-we-do-it/methods-and-guidelines/guidelines-for-the-economic-evaluation-of-health-technologies-canada (2017). Accessed 12 Dec 2017

PBS: Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.2). http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/procedure-guidance/4-presubmission-requirements/4-2-guidelines-for-preparing-submissions (2017). Accessed 12 Dec 2017

SMC: Guidance to manufacturers for completion of New Product Assessment Form (NPAF). https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/submissionprocess/Guidance_on_NPAF_Final_May2017.doc (2017). Accessed 12 Dec 2017

Longworth, L., Rowen, D.: Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 16(1), 202–210 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.010 CrossRefPubMed

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). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-110 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Doble, B., Lorgelly, P.: Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-3L: assessing the external validity of existing mapping algorithms. Qual. Life Res. 25(4), 891–911 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1116-2 CrossRefPubMed

Franks, P., Lubetkin, E.I., Gold, M.R., Tancredi, D.J., Jia, H.: Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making 24(3), 247–254 (2004)CrossRefPubMed

10.

Fredriksson, T., Pettersson, U.: Severe psoriasis–oral therapy with a new retinoid. Dermatologica 157(4), 238–244 (1978)CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gray, A.M., Rivero-Arias, O., Clarke, P.M.: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med. Decis. Mak. 26(1), 18–29 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X05284108 CrossRef

12.

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

13.

Yang, F., Lau, T., Lee, E., Vathsala, A., Chia, K.S., Luo, N.: Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur. J. Health Econ. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

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). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000068537.83456.36 CrossRefPubMed

15.

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

16.

Davis, J.C., Liu-Ambrose, T., Khan, K.M., Robertson, M.C., Marra, C.A.: SF-6D and EQ-5D result in widely divergent incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in a clinical trial of older women: implications for health policy decisions. Osteoporos. Int. 23(7), 1849–1857 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1770-3 CrossRefPubMed

17.

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). https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a39428 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Yang, F., Lau, T., Luo, N.: Cost-effectiveness of haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for patients with end-stage renal disease in Singapore. Nephrology 21(8), 669–677 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12668 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Yang, F., Lau, T., Lee, E., Vathsala, A., Chia, K.S., Luo, N.: Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur. J. Health Econ. 16(9), 1019–1026 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7 CrossRefPubMed

20.

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

21.

Ware, J. Jr., Kosinski, M., Keller, S.D.: A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med. Care 34(3), 220–233 (1996)CrossRefPubMed

22.

Devlin, N.J., Shah, K.K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., van Hout, B.: Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Franks, P., Lubetkin, E.I., Gold, M.R., Tancredi, D.J.: Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Med. Care. 41(11), 1277–1283 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000093480.58308.D8 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lawrence, W.F., Fleishman, J.A.: Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med. Decis. Mak. 24(2), 160–169 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X04264015 CrossRef

25.

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

26.

Wyld, M., Morton, R.L., Hayen, A., Howard, K., Webster, A.C.: A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med. 9(9), e1001307 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001307 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Campbell, M.K., Torgerson, D.J.: Bootstrapping: estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. QJM 92(3), 177–182 (1999)CrossRefPubMed

28.

Briggs, A.H., Wonderling, D.E., Mooney, C.Z.: Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 6(4), 327–340 (1997)CrossRefPubMed

29.

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. Arthritis Rheum. 57(6), 1043–1049 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22883 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Brazier, J.E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., Rowen, D.L.: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11(2), 215–225 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z CrossRefPubMed

31.

Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Roberts, J.: Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7, 27 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-27 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Chuang, L.H., Kind, P.: Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: an empirical comparison of methodologies. Pharmacoeconomics. 27(6), 491–505 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200927060-00005 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Hernandez Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Grimm, S., Pudney, S., Gomes, M., Sadique, Z., Meads, D., O’Dwyer, J., Barton, G., Irvine, L.: EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 21(1), 49–56 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Yang, F., Devlin, N., Luo, N.: Cost-utility analysis using EQ-5D-5L data: does how the utilities are derived matter? Value Health (2018, accepted)

35.

Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., Roberts, J.: Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J. Health Econ. 25(2), 334–346 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.003 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Whitehurst, D.G., Norman, R., Brazier, J.E., Viney, R.: Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value Health 17(5), 570–577 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1720 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Rowen, D., Young, T., Brazier, J., Gaugris, S.: Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health 15(8), 1059–1068 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2201 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Versteegh, M.: Impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of using alternatives to EQ-5D in a Markov model for multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics 34(11), 1133–1144 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0421-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Hoyle, C.K., Tabberer, M., Brooks, J.: Mapping the COPD assessment test onto EQ-5D. Value Health 19(4), 469–477 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.005 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments
Authors: Fan Yang
Nancy Devlin
Nan Luo
Publication date: 01-02-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0987-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information

Unemployment, unemployment duration, and health: selection or causation?

Are cost differences between specialist and general hospitals compensated by the prospective payment system?

Methodological problems in the method used by IQWiG within early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany

The economic burden of disease of epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain: the OvarCost study

Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care