Top

The European Journal of Health Economics

Published in:

01-03-2021 | Original Paper

Mapping MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire onto country-specific EQ-5D-5L utility scores: a comparison of traditional regression models with a machine learning technique

Authors: Lan Gao, Wei Luo, Utsana Tonmukayakul, Marj Moodie, Gang Chen

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 2/2021

Abstract

Background

This study aims to derive country-specific EQ-5D-5L health status utility (HSU) from the MacNew Heart Disease Health-related Quality of Life questionnaire (MacNew) using both traditional regression analyses, as well as a machine learning technique.

Methods

Data were drawn from the Multi-Instrument Comparison (MIC) survey. The EQ-5D-5L was scored using 4 country-specific tariffs (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada). The traditional regression techniques, as well as a machine learning technique, deep neural network (DNN), were adopted to directly predict country-specific EQ-5D-5L HSUs (i.e. a direct mapping approach). An indirect response mapping was undertaken additionally. The optimal algorithm was identified based on three goodness-of-fit tests, namely, the mean absolute error (MAE), mean error (ME) and root mean square error (RMSE), with the first being the primary criteria. Internal validation was undertaken.

Results

Indirect response mapping and direct mapping (via betamix with MacNew items as the key predictors) were found to produce the optimal mapping algorithms with the lowest MAE when EQ-5D-5L were scored using three country-specific tariffs (United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany for the former and United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Germany for the latter approach). DNN approach generated the lowest MAE and RMSE when using the Germany-specific tariff.

Conclusions

Among different approaches been explored, there is not a conclusive conclusion regarding the optimal method for developing mapping algorithms. A machine learning approach represents an alternative mapping approach that should be explored further. The reported algorithms from response mapping have the potential to be more widely used; however, the performance needs to be externally validated.

Available only for authorised users

Rumsfeld, J.S., Alexander, K.P., Goff, D.C., Jr., Graham, M.M., Ho, P.M., Masoudi, F.A., Moser, D.K., Roger, V.L., Slaughter, M.S., Smolderen, K.G., Spertus, J.A., Sullivan, M.D., Treat-Jacobson, D., Zerwic, J.J., American Heart Association Council on Quality of, C., Outcomes Research, C.o.C., Stroke Nursing, C.o.E., Prevention, C.o.P.V.D., Stroke, C.: Cardiovascular health: the importance of measuring patient-reported health status: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 127(22), 2233–2249 (2013). doi:https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182949a2e

Hofer, S., Benzer, W., Oldridge, N.: Change in health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease predicts 4-year mortality. Int. J. Cardiol. 174(1), 7–12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.03.144CrossRefPubMed

Hofer, S., Kullich, W., Graninger, U., Wonisch, M., Gassner, A., Klicpera, M., Laimer, H., Marko, C., Schwann, H., Muller, R.: Cardiac rehabilitation in Austria: long term health-related quality of life outcomes. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 7, 99 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-7-99CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.2012.10.010CrossRefPubMed

Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), version 5.0. Available from: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/. (2016).

Hofer, S., Lim, L., Guyatt, G., Oldridge, N.: The MacNew Heart Disease health-related quality of life instrument: a summary. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2, 3 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chen, G., McKie, J., Khan, M.A., Richardson, J.R.: Deriving health utilities from the MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 14(5), 405–415 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515114536096CrossRefPubMed

Obermeyer, Z., Emanuel, E.J.: Predicting the future—Big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(13), 1216–1219 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1606181CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mullainathan, S., Spiess, J.: Machine learning: an applied econometric approach. J. Econ. Perspect. 31(2), 87–106 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.87CrossRef

10.

Rajkomar, A., Dean, J., Kohane, I.: Machine learning in medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(14), 1347–1358 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1814259CrossRefPubMed

11.

Chen, P.H.C., Liu, Y., Peng, L.: How to develop machine learning models for healthcare. Nat. Mater. 18(5), 410–414 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-019-0345-0CrossRefPubMed

12.

Richardson J, I., Khan, M., Maxwell, A.: Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC paper1: background, questions, instruments. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Research Paper76, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, 2012.

13.

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-zCrossRefPubMed

14.

Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Johnson, J.A., Canadian, E.Q.D.L.V.S.G.: A Time Trade-off-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care 54(1), 98–105 (2016). doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447

15.

Pickard, A.S., Law, E.H., Jiang, R., Pullenayegum, E., Shaw, J.W., Xie, F., Oppe, M., Boye, K.S., Chapman, R.H., Gong, C.L., Balch, A., Busschbach, J.J.V.: United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using an International Protocol. Value Health (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009CrossRefPubMed

16.

Ludwig, K., Graf von der Schulenburg, J.M., Greiner, W.: German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics 36(6), 663–674 (2018). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8

17.

Oldridge, N., Guyatt, G., Jones, N., Crowe, J., Singer, J., Feeny, D., Mckelvie, R., Runions, J., Streiner, D., Torrance, G.: Effects on quality-of-life with comprehensive rehabilitation after acute myocardial-infarction. Am. J. Cardiol. 67(13), 1084–1089 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(91)90870-QCrossRefPubMed

18.

Lim, L.L.Y., Valenti, L.A., Knapp, J.C., Dobson, A.J., Plotnikoff, R., Higginbotham, N., Heller, R.F.: A self-administered quality-of-life questionnaire after acute myocardial-infarction. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 46(11), 1249–1256 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90089-JCrossRefPubMed

19.

Valenti, L., Lim, L., Heller, R.F., Knapp, J.: An improved questionnaire for assessing quality of life after acute myocardial infarction. Qual. Life Res. 5(1), 151–161 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00435980CrossRefPubMed

20.

Dixon, T., Lim, L.L.Y., Oldridge, N.B.: The MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life instrument: reference data for users. Qual. Life Res. 11(2), 173–183 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015005109731CrossRefPubMed

21.

Alava, M.H., Wailoo, A.: Fitting adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models to EQ-5D. 15(3), 737–750 (2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1501500307

22.

Hernandez Alava, M., Wailoo, A.J., Ara, R.: Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health 15(3), 550–561 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.014CrossRefPubMed

23.

Gray, L.A., Alava, M.H., Wailoo, A.J.: Development of methods for the mapping of utilities using mixture models: mapping the AQLQ-S to the EQ-5D-5L and the HUI3 in Patients with Asthma. Value Health 21(6), 748–757 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Wailoo, A., Alava, M.H., Martinez, A.E.: Modelling the relationship between the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and EQ-5D. Health Qual. Life Out 12 (2014). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-37

25.

Ward Fuller, G., Hernandez, M., Pallot, D., Lecky, F., Stevenson, M., Gabbe, B.: Health state preference weights for the Glasgow Outcome Scale following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and mapping study. Value Health 20(1), 141–151 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.2398CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Gray, L.A., Hernández Alava, M., Wailoo, A.J.: Development of methods for the mapping of utilities using mixture models: mapping the AQLQ-S to the EQ-5D-5L and the HUI3 in patients with asthma. Value Health 21(6), 748–757 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Gray, L.A., Alava, M.H.: A command for fitting mixture regression models for bounded dependent variables using the beta distribution. 18(1), 51–75 (2018). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1801800105

28.

Rabe Hesketh, B., Everitt, B.: A handbook of statistical analyses using Stata (fourth edition). Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida (2007)

29.

Chen, G., Garcia-Gordillo, M.A., Collado-Mateo, D., del Pozo-Cruz, B., Adsuar, J.C., Cordero-Ferrera, J.M., Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M., Sánchez-Martínez, F.I.: Converting Parkinson-specific scores into health state utilities to assess cost-utility analysis. Patient Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 11(6), 665–675 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0317-5CrossRef

30.

Freese J, JS, L.: Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Austin: Stata. (2006)

31.

LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521, 436 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539CrossRefPubMed

32.

Esteva, A., Robicquet, A., Ramsundar, B., Kuleshov, V., DePristo, M., Chou, K., Cui, C., Corrado, G., Thrun, S., Dean, J.: A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat. Med. 25(1), 24–29 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0316-zCrossRefPubMed

33.

Willmott, C.J., Matsuura, K.: Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Climate Res. 30(1), 79–82 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3354/cr030079CrossRef

34.

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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008CrossRefPubMed

35.

Alava, M.H., Wailoo, A.: Fitting adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models to EQ-5D. Stata J 15(3), 737–750 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1501500307CrossRef

36.

Alava, M.H., Wailoo, A.J., Ara, R.: Tails from the Peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D Questionnaire Health State Utility Values. Value Health 15(3), 550–561 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.014CrossRef

37.

Kaambwa, B., Chen, G., Ratcliffe, J., Iezzi, A., Maxwell, A., Richardson, J.: Mapping between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs). Pharmacoeconomics 35(1), 111–124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0446-4CrossRefPubMed

38.

Basu, A., Manca, A.: Regression estimators for generic health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life years. Med. Decis. Making 32(1), 56–69 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x11416988CrossRefPubMed

39.

LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521(7553), 436–444 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539CrossRefPubMed

40.

Hays, R.D., Revicki, D.A., Feeny, D., Fayers, P., Spritzer, K.L., Cella, D.: Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS((R)) Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics 34(10), 1015–1022 (2016). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0408-x

41.

Thompson, N.R., Lapin, B.R., Katzan, I.L.: Mapping PROMIS Global Health Items to EuroQol (EQ-5D) Utility Scores using linear and equipercentile equating. Pharmacoeconomics 35(11), 1167–1176 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0541-1CrossRefPubMed

42.

Chen, G., Khan, M.A., Iezzi, A., Ratcliffe, J., Richardson, J.: Mapping between 6 multiattribute utility instruments. Med. Decis. Making 36(2), 160–175 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x15578127CrossRefPubMed

Title: Mapping MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire onto country-specific EQ-5D-5L utility scores: a comparison of traditional regression models with a machine learning technique
Authors: Lan Gao
Wei Luo
Utsana Tonmukayakul
Marj Moodie
Gang Chen
Publication date: 01-03-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01259-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Mapping MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire onto country-specific EQ-5D-5L utility scores: a comparison of traditional regression models with a machine learning technique

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

COVID-19 and the role of inequality in French regional departments

Does socioeconomic status affect hospital utilization and health outcomes of chronic disease patients?

More room for telemedicine after COVID-19: lessons for primary care?

Efficiency and productivity of health systems in prevention and control of non-communicable diseases in China, 2008–2015

Healthcare resource utilization and associated cost of patients with bone metastases from solid tumors who are naïve to bone-targeting agents: a comparative analysis of patients with and without skeletal-related events

Employer survey to estimate the productivity friction period