IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v24y2006i8p751-765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Review of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measures for Use in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Darren Clayson
  • Diane Wild
  • Paul Quarterman
  • Isabelle Duprat-Lomon
  • Maria Kubin
  • Stephen Coons

Abstract

With the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HIV-infected patients are living longer and are concerned not only with a treatment’s ability to extend their life but also with the quality of the life they are able to lead. Regulatory authorities are also paying closer attention to the use of health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) measures in clinical trials and to the subsequent claims that are made based on the results. This paper reviews existing HR-QOL measures reported in the HIV/AIDS literature since 1990 and identifies those most worthy of consideration for use in future clinical trials. A comprehensive review following predefined selection criteria was conducted. Generic and HIV-targeted measures were assessed for content and practicality for the clinical trial setting. The generic measures were additionally reviewed for the ability to produce preference-based index scores and for the existence of normative general population data. Three generic and six HIV-targeted measures met these selection criteria and were then assessed more fully in terms of their development (HIV-targeted measures), psychometric properties and appropriateness for use in clinical trials. It was determined that each of the selected generic measures (i.e. Medical Outcomes Study [MOS] 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument [SF-36], EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index [HUI]) could serve as a useful adjunct to an HIV-targeted measure in a trial. The Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) and MOS-HIV health survey were deemed the two most appropriate HIV-targeted measures. Each of the measures can be self-administered in ≤10 minutes and there was ample evidence of their excellent psychometric properties. However, they would not be optimal in all HIV-infected subgroups (e.g. treatment naive vs advanced; adolescents vs older adults) targeted for clinical trial interventions. Although there is no one best HR-QOL measure for use in HIV/AIDS clinical trials, based on our review criteria we identified three generic and two HIVtargeted candidate measures. However, these measures have their limitations and it is clear that greater consensus needs to develop regarding more effective and efficient approaches to HR-QOL measurement in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Along with the increasingly complex HR-QOL measurement task resulting from changes in the HIV-infected population and shifts in the HR-QOL burden associated with HIV infection and its treatment over the past 25 years, it is increasingly important that HR-QOL outcomes become viable endpoints in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Darren Clayson & Diane Wild & Paul Quarterman & Isabelle Duprat-Lomon & Maria Kubin & Stephen Coons, 2006. "A Comparative Review of Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measures for Use in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 751-765, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:24:y:2006:i:8:p:751-765
    DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624080-00003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/00019053-200624080-00003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/00019053-200624080-00003?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. Tom E. Hughes & Robert M. Kaplan & Stephen Joel Coons & Jolaine R. Draugalis & Jeffrey A. Johnson & Thomas L. Patterson, 1997. "Construct Validities of the Quality of Well-Being Scale and the MOS-HIV-34 Health Survey for HIV-infected Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(4), pages 439-446, October.
    3. Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    2. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Brazier, J & Rowen, D & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2009. "Using rank and discrete choice data to estimate health state utility values on the QALY scale," MPRA Paper 29891, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. 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.
    6. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    7. Francesca Cornaglia & Naomi E. Feldman & Andrew Leigh, 2014. "Crime and Mental Well-Being," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(1), pages 110-140.
    8. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    9. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    10. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. 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.
    14. Johanna L. Bosch & Elkan F. Halpern & G. Scott Gazelle, 2002. "Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after Treatment of Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 403-409, October.
    15. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    16. Swee Soon & Su Goh & Yong Bee & Jiat Poon & Shu Li & Julian Thumboo & Hwee Wee, 2010. "Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL) [Chinese version for Singapore] questionnaire," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 239-249, July.
    17. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    18. Roisin Adams & Cathal Walsh & Douglas Veale & Barry Bresnihan & Oliver FitzGerald & Michael Barry, 2010. "Understanding the Relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and Disease Activity in Inflammatory Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 477-487, June.
    19. Dina Jankovic & Pedro Saramago Goncalves & Lina Gega & David Marshall & Kath Wright & Meena Hafidh & Rachel Churchill & Laura Bojke, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 377-388, May.
    20. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.

    More about this item

    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:pharme:v:24:y:2006:i:8:p:751-765. 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.