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

Osteoporosis International

Volumn 23, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1849-1857

  Davis, J C ^a   Liu Ambrose, T ^a   Khan, K M ^a   Robertson, M C ^b   Marra, C A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^c ST PAUL S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cost utility analysis; Health related quality of life; Incremental cost effectiveness ratio; Older adults

Indexed keywords

AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EUROQOL-5D; EXERCISE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESISTANCE TRAINING; SHORT FORM-6D;

AGED; CANADA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSTURAL BALANCE; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESISTANCE TRAINING;

EID: 84863573010     PISSN: 0937941X     EISSN: 14332965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-011-1770-3     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M (2002) A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 360:711-715.
2. Fenwick E, Marshall DA, Blackhouse G, Vidaillet H, Slee A, Shemanski L, Levy AR (2008) Assessing the impact of censoring of costs and effects on health-care decisionmaking: an example using the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study. Value Health 11:365-375.
3. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Rosen AB (2005) Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001. Value Health 8:3-9.
4. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR (1996) Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 276:1339-1341.
5. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J (2004) A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13:873-884.
6. Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Roberts J (2006) Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ 25:334-346.
7. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC (2000) Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health 21:587-611.
8. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN (2007) Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 25:93-106.
9. Sach TH, Barton GR, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Muir KR (2009) Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Med Care 47:889-894.
10. Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53-72.
11. Dolan P, Roberts J (2002) Modelling valuations for Eq-5d health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care 40:442-446.
12. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271-292.
13. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K (1998) Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1115-1128.
14. Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P, Wouters E, Kuijpers P, Honig A, Willems D, de Leeuw P, Severens J, Boonen A (2011) The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trialbased cost-utility studies. Value Health 13:222-229.
15. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, Esdaile JM, Anis AH (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. Soc Sci Med 60:1571-1582.
16. Liu-Ambrose T, Nagamatsu LS, Graf P, Beattie BL, Ashe MC, Handy TC (2010) Resistance training and executive functions: a 12-month randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 170:170-178.
17. Davis JC, Marra CA, Robertson MC, Khan KM, Najafzadeh M, Ashe MC, Liu-Ambrose T (2010) Economic evaluation of doseresponse resistance training in older women: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Osteoporos Int 22:1355-1366.
18. Davis JC, Marra CA, Beattie BL, Robertson MC, Najafzadeh M, Graf P, Nagamatsu LS, Liu-Ambrose T (2010) Sustained cognitive and economic benefits of resistance training among communitydwelling senior women: a 1-year follow-up study of the Brain Power study. Arch Intern Med 170:2036-2038.
19. Maetzel A, Li LC, Pencharz J, Tomlinson G, Bombardier C (2004) The economic burden associated with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and hypertension: a comparative study. Ann Rheum Dis 63:395-401.
20. Liu-Ambrose T, Ashe MC, Marra C, Conditions Research Team PA (2008) Among older adults with multiple chronic conditions, physical activity is independently and inversely associated with health care utilization. Br J Sports Med 44(14):1024-1028.
21. (2008) http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoprac/physbilling/payschedule/ index.htm.l.
22. Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095-1108
23. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ (2005) Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 14:487-496.
24. Manca A, Palmer S (2005) Handling missing data in patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis alongside randomised clinical trials. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 4:65-75.
25. Matthews JN, Altman DG, Campbell MJ, Royston P (1990) Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ 300:230-235.
26. Briggs AH, Gray AM (1999) Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 3:1-134.
27. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M (2001) Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 10:779-787.
28. Davis JC, Marra CA, Robertson MC, Khan KM, Najafzadeh M, Ashe MC, Liu-Ambrose T (2011) Economic evaluation of doseresponse resistance training in older women: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Osteoporos Int 22:1355-1366.
29. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Whynes DK, Muir KR (2008) A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged > or =45 years. Health Econ 17:815-832.
30. Bharmal M, Thomas J 3rd (2006) Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 9:262-271.
31. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation for health care programmes, Thirdth edn. Oxford University Press, New Yor.k.
32. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME (2003) Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preferencebased instruments. Med Care 41:791-801.
33. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, Kopec JA, Brazier JE, Koehler BE, Chalmers A, Anis AH (2004) A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 42:1125-1131.
34. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH (2005) Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 14:207-219.
35. Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, Najafzadeh M, Wolfe F, Esdaile JM, Clarke AE, Gignac MA, Anis AH (2007) Not all "qualityadjusted life years" are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 60:616-624.
36. Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Pletcher MJ, Tice JA (2007) Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women: a cost-utility analysis. Arch Intern Med 167:290-295