The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 383–391

The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure

  • Nick Kontodimopoulos
  • Michalis Argiriou
  • Nikolaos Theakos
  • Dimitris Niakas
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

To compare EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities across groups of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with varying levels of disease severity.

Methods

A consecutive sample (N = 251) of CHF patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were surveyed. Disease severity was proxied via a self-assessment scale, the EQ-VAS and the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI); however, validity was demonstrated only by the latter. Association and level of agreement between instruments in DASI-based severity groups were estimated with Pearson’s r and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Paired-samples t test was used to identify significant differences. In a linear regression model, the DASI was used as an anchor of disease severity to identify a potential “crossover” point between EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities.

Results

EQ-5D and SF-6D strongly correlated over the entire sample (r = 0.647, P < 0.001); however, their agreement was moderate (ICC = 0.484, P < 0.001). In the less severe DASI groups (i.e. higher functional capacity) EQ-5D was significantly higher than SF-6D (P < 0.001) and differences constituted minimally important differences (MIDs). Contrarily, in the more severe groups SF-6D was predominantly higher than EQ-5D. The regression model indicated a utility crossover point at 0.722 and predicted that individuals with a utility score less than this would score higher on the SF-6D than on the EQ-5D, and vice versa. The DASI score at crossover was calculated at 31.94.

Conclusions

In subgroups of patients differing in CHF severity according to the DASI, mean EQ-5D and SF-6D indices differed significantly. Contrarily, in socio-demographic and clinical groups, these utility differences were not directly evident. According to the evidence, comparisons based on severity classification via a valid disease-specific external instrument may provide insight on instrument choice in cost-utility analyses.

Keywords

Chronic heart failure Cost-utility analysis Duke activity status index EQ-5D Health-related quality of life SF-6D 

References

  1. 1.
    McMurray, J.J., Pfeffer, M.A.: Heart failure. Lancet 365, 1877–1889 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart, S., Jenkins, A., Buchan, S., McGuire, A., Capewell, S., McMurray, J.J.: The current cost of heart failure to the National Health Service in the UK. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 4, 361–371 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosamond, W., Flegal, K., Furie, K., Go, A., Greenlund, K., Haase, N., et al.: Heart disease and stroke statistics-2008 update: a report from the American heart association statistics committee and stroke statistics subcommittee. Circulation 117, e25–e146 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rich, M.W., Nease, R.F.: Cost-effectiveness analysis in clinical practice: the case of heart failure. Arch. Intern. Med. 159, 1690–1700 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juenger, J., Schellberg, D., Kraemer, S., Haunstetter, A., Zugck, C., Herzog, W., et al.: Health related quality of life in patients with congestive heart failure: comparison with other chronic diseases and relation to functional variables. Heart 87, 235–241 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hobbs, F.D., Kenkre, J.E., Roalfe, A.K., Davis, R.C., Hare, R., Davies, M.K.: Impact of heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction on quality of life: a cross-sectional study comparing common chronic cardiac and medical disorders and a representative adult population. Eur. Heart J. 23, 1867–1876 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neubauer, S.: The failing heart—an engine out of fuel. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 1140–1151 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weintraub, W.S., Cole, J., Tooley, J.F.: Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in heart failure research. Am. Heart J. 143, 565–576 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rasanen, P., Roine, E., Sintonen, H., Semberg-Konttinen, V., Ryynanen, O.P., Roine, R.: Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Tech. Assess Health Care 22, 235–241 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bryan, S., Longworth, L.: Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 253–260 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bleichrodt, H.: A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 11, 447–456 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green, C., Brazier, J., Deverill, M.: Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 17, 151–165 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J. Health Econ. 15, 209–231 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Longworth, L., Bryan, S.: An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 12, 1061–1067 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerard, K., Nicholson, T., Mullee, M., Mehta, R., Roderick, P.: EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 3, 91–102 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamers, L.M., Bouwmans, C.A., van Straten, A., Donker, M.C., Hakkaart, L.: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 15, 1229–1236 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xie, F., Li, S.C., Luo, N., Lo, N.N., Yeo, S.J., Yang, K.Y., et al.: Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 57, 1043–1049 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Stel, H.F., Buskens, E.: Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 4, 20 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grieve, R., Grishchenko, M., Cairns, J.: SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10, 15–23 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13, 873–884 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A.A., Tountas, Y., Niakas, D.: Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual. Life Res. 18, 87–97 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barton, G.R., Sach, T.H., Avery, A.J., Doherty, M., Jenkinson, C., Muir, K.R.: Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 7, 12 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petrou, S., Hockley, C.: An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 14, 1169–1189 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bharmal, M., Thomas 3rd, J.: 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 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barton, G.R., Sach, T.H., Avery, A.J., Jenkinson, C., Doherty, M., Whynes, D.K., et al.: A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged > or = 45 years. Health Econ. 17, 815–832 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsevat, J., Duke, D., Goldman, L., Pfeffer, M.A., Lamas, G.A., Soukup, J.R., et al.: Cost-effectiveness of captopril therapy after myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 26, 914–919 (1995)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glick, H., Cook, J., Kinosian, B., Pitt, B., Bourassa, M.G., Pouleur, H., et al.: Costs and effects of enalapril therapy in patients with symptomatic heart failure: an economic analysis of the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD) treatment trial. J. Card. Fail. 1, 371–380 (1995)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, London (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    The EuroQol group: EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 16, 199–208 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brooks, R.: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37, 53–72 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dolan, P.: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35, 1095–1108 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 5, 141–154 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yfantopoulos, J.: The Greek version of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) instrument. Arch. Hell. Med. 18, 180–191 (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Niakas, D., Yfantopoulos, J., Dimitrakaki, C., Tountas, Y.: Validity of the EQ-5D instrument in a Greek general population. Value Health 11, 1162–1169 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21, 271–292 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pappa, E., Kontodimopoulos, N., Niakas, D.: Validating and norming of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Qual. Life Res. 14, 1433–1438 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., Pappa, E.: Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Qual. Life Res. 14, 1959–1965 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Niakas, D.: A cost-utility analysis in renal replacement therapy based on patients’ expected remaining life years. Health Policy 86, 85–96 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hlatky, M.A., Boineau, R.E., Higginbotham, M.B., Lee, K.L., Mark, D.B., Califf, R.M., et al.: A brief self-administered questionnaire to determine functional capacity (The Duke activity status index). Am. J. Cardiol. 64, 651–654 (1989)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mark, D.B., Naylor, C.D., Hlatky, M.A., Califf, R.M., Topol, E.J., Granger, C.B., et al.: Use of medical resources and quality of life after myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 331, 1130–1135 (1994)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pilote, L., Bourassa, M.G., Bacon, C., Bost, J., Detre, K., Mark, D.B., et al.: Better functional status in American than Canadian patients with heart disease: an effect of medical care? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 26, 1115–1120 (1995)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roques, F., Nashef, S.A., Michel, P., Gauducheau, E., de Vincentiis, C., Baudet, E., et al.: Risk factors and outcome in European cardiac surgery: analysis of the Euro-SCORE multinational database of 19 030 patients. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 15, 816–822 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nashef, S.A., Roques, F., Michel, P., Gauducheau, E., Lemeshow, S., Salamon, R.: European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (Euro-SCORE). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 16, 9–13 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159 (1992)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E.: What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1, 4 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sullivan, P.W., Lawrence, W.F., Ghushchyan, V.: A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Care 43, 736–749 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E.: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual. Life Res. 14, 1523–1532 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nelson, C.L., Herndon, J.E., Mark, D.B., Pryor, D.B., Califf, R.M., Hlatky, M.A.: Relation of clinical and angiographic factors to functional capacity as measured by the Duke activity status index. Am. J. Cardiol. 68, 973–975 (1991)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Parissis, J.T., Nikolaou, M., Birmpa, D., Farmakis, D., Paraskevaidis, I., Bistola, V., et al.: Clinical and prognostic value of Duke’s activity status index along with plasma B-type natriuretic peptide levels in chronic heart failure secondary to ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am. J. Cardiol. 103, 73–75 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nick Kontodimopoulos
    • 1
  • Michalis Argiriou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nikolaos Theakos
    • 2
  • Dimitris Niakas
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesHellenic Open UniversityPatrasGreece
  2. 2.2nd Department of Cardiac SurgeryEvangelismos HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations