IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v20y2019i1d10.1007_s10198-018-0987-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Fan Yang

    (University of York)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Fan Yang & Nancy Devlin & Nan Luo, 2019. "Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 99-105, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-018-0987-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-018-0987-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-018-0987-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-018-0987-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    3. Melanie Wyld & Rachael Lisa Morton & Andrew Hayen & Kirsten Howard & Angela Claire Webster, 2012. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility-Based Quality of Life in Chronic Kidney Disease Treatments," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. Peter Franks & Erica I. Lubetkin & Marthe R. Gold & Daniel J. Tancredi & Haomiao Jia, 2004. "Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a National US Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 247-254, June.
    5. Andrew H. Briggs & David E. Wonderling & Christopher Z. Mooney, 1997. "Pulling cost‐effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: A non‐parametric approach to confidence interval estimation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 327-340, July.
    6. Matthijs Versteegh, 2016. "Impact on the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of Using Alternatives to EQ-5D in a Markov Model for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1133-1144, November.
    7. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    8. Fan Yang & Titus Lau & Evan Lee & A. Vathsala & Kee Chia & Nan Luo, 2015. "Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 1019-1026, December.
    9. William F. Lawrence & John A. Fleishman, 2004. "Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D Preference Scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a Nationally Representative Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 160-169, March.
    10. Alastair M. Gray & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Philip M. Clarke, 2006. "Estimating the Association between SF-12 Responses and EQ-5D Utility Values by Response Mapping," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(1), pages 18-29, January.
    11. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mona Aghdaee & Bonny Parkinson & Kompal Sinha & Yuanyuan Gu & Rajan Sharma & Emma Olin & Henry Cutler, 2022. "An examination of machine learning to map non‐preference based patient reported outcome measures to health state utility values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1525-1557, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fan Yang & Carlos K. H. Wong & Nan Luo & James Piercy & Rebecca Moon & James Jackson, 2019. "Mapping the kidney disease quality of life 36-item short form survey (KDQOL-36) to the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in patients undergoing dialysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1195-1206, November.
    2. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    3. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
    6. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Roberts, J, 2008. "Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship?," MPRA Paper 29831, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    8. Peiyi Lu & Ying Liang, 2016. "Health-Related Quality of Life of Young Chinese Civil Servants Working in Local Government: Comparison of SF-12 and EQ5D," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 11(4), pages 1445-1464, December.
    9. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    10. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    11. Richard Huan Xu & Dong Dong & Nan Luo & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Yushan Wu & Siyue Yu & Renchi Yang & Junshuai Liu & Huiqin Yuan & Shuyang Zhang, 2021. "Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 547-557, June.
    12. Ning Gu & Chris Bell & Marc Botteman & Xiang Ji & John Carter & Ben Hout, 2012. "Estimating Preference-Based EQ-5D Health State Utilities or Item Responses from Neuropathic Pain Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 185-197, September.
    13. Jacinto Nogueira & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2015. "Using the SF-6D to measure the impact of alcohol dependence on health-related quality of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 347-356, May.
    14. Billingsley Kaambwa & Lucinda Billingham & Stirling Bryan, 2013. "Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 231-241, April.
    15. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    16. Marra, Carlo A. & Woolcott, John C. & Kopec, Jacek A. & Shojania, Kamran & Offer, Robert & Brazier, John E. & Esdaile, John M. & Anis, Aslam H., 2005. "A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1571-1582, April.
    17. Wijnen, Ben F.M. & Mosweu, Iris & Majoie, Marian H.J.M. & Ridsdale, Leone & de Kinderen, Reina J.A. & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & McCrone, Paul, 2018. "A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106170, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Alexander Silbersdorff & Julia Lynch & Stephan Klasen & Thomas Kneib, 2017. "Reconsidering the Income-Illness Relationship using Distributional Regression: An Application to Germany," Courant Research Centre: Poverty, Equity and Growth - Discussion Papers 231, Courant Research Centre PEG.
    19. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    20. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-effectiveness; Dialysis; EQ-5D; Mapping; SF-6D;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-018-0987-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.