Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 53–64 | Cite as

Estimating utilities for chronic kidney disease, using SF-36 and SF-12-based measures: challenges in a population of veterans with diabetes

  • Mangala Rajan
  • Kuan-Chi Lai
  • Chin-Lin Tseng
  • Shirley Qian
  • Alfredo Selim
  • Lewis Kazis
  • Leonard Pogach
  • Anushua Sinha
Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

Using transformations of existing quality-of-life data to estimate utilities has the potential to efficiently provide investigators with utility information. We used within-method and across-method comparisons and estimated disutilities associated with increasing chronic kidney disease (CKD) severity.

Methods

In an observational cohort of veterans with diabetes (DM) and pre-existing SF-36/SF-12 responses, we used six transformation methods (SF-12 to EQ-5D, SF-36 to HUI2, SF-12 to SF-6D, SF-36 to SF-6D, SF-36 to SF-6D (Bayesian method), and SF-12 to VR-6D) to estimate unadjusted utilities. CKD severity was staged using glomerular filtration rate estimated from serum creatinines, with the modification of diet in renal disease formula. We then used multivariate regression to estimate disutilities specifically associated with CKD severity stage.

Results

Of 67,963 patients, 22,273 patients had recent-onset DM and 45,690 patients had prevalent DM. For the recent-onset group, the adjusted disutility associated with CKD derived from the six transformation methods ranged from 0.0029 to 0.0045 for stage 2; −0.004 to −0.0009 for early stage 3; −0.017 to −0.010 for late stage 3; −0.023 to −0.012 for stage 4; −0.078 to −0.033 for stage 5; and −0.012 to −0.001 for ESRD/dialysis.

Conclusion

Disutility did not increase monotonically as CKD severity increased. Differences in disutilities estimated using the six different methods were found. Both findings have implications for using such estimates in economic analyses.

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus, type 2 Quality of life Economics Utility theory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by VHA Health Services Research and Development Grant “Medications and Diabetes Morbidity in the VA Diabetes Epidemiology Cohort” [Principal investigators: Donald Miller and Leonard Pogach]. Preliminary results from this paper were presented at the 2011 VHA Health Services Research and Development annual meeting (Baltimore, MD) and at the 2011 Society for Medical Decision Making annual meeting (Chicago, IL). The authors thank Heather Franklin for her assistance with manuscript preparation and Sri Ram Pentakota for his feedback. Financial support for this study was provided by the Veterans’ Health Administration/Health Services Research and Development (VHA/HSR&D). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.

Conflict of interest

All authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11136_2012_139_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42(9), 851–859.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. European Journal of Health Economics, 11(2), 215–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28(1), 66–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nichol, M. B., Sengupta, N., & Globe, D. R. (2001). Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: Estimation of the Health Utility Index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Medical Decision Making, 21(2), 105–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 401–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donald-Sherbourne, C., Unutzer, J., Schoenbaum, M., Duan, N., Lenert, L. A., Sturm, R., et al. (2001). Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression? Medical Care, 39(11), 1246–1259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glasziou, P., Alexander, J., Beller, E., & Clarke, P. (2007). Which health-related quality of life score? A comparison of alternative utility measures in patients with type 2 diabetes in the ADVANCE trial. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollingworth, W., Deyo, R. A., Sullivan, S. D., Emerson, S. S., Gray, D. T., & Jarvik, J. G. (2002). The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Economics, 11(1), 71–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan, R. M., Groessl, E. J., Sengupta, N., Sieber, W. J., & Ganiats, T. G. (2005). Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 43(1), 79–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lobo, F. S., Gross, C. R., & Matthees, B. J. (2004). Estimation and comparison of derived preference scores from the SF-36 in lung transplant patients. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 377–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McDonough, C. M., Grove, M. R., Tosteson, T. D., Lurie, J. D., Hilibrand, A. S., & Tosteson, A. N. (2005). Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1321–1332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pickard, A. S., Wang, Z., Walton, S. M., & Lee, T. A. (2005). Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    SF-6D Bayesian programme. (2011). Retrieved May 25, 2011, from http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/mvh/sf-6d/bayesian.html.
  17. 17.
    Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26(3), 597–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Qian, S. X., Brazier, J., & Kazis, L. E. (2011). A preference-based measure of health: The VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-item health survey. Quality of Life Research, 20(8),1337–1347.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyle, J. P., Thompson, T. J., Gregg, E. W., Barker, L. E., & Williamson, D. F. (2010). Projection of the year 2050 burden of diabetes in the US adult population: Dynamic modeling of incidence, mortality, and prediabetes prevalence. Population Health Metrics, 8, 29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    US Renal Data System. (2010). USRDS 2010 annual data report: Atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD, 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazis, L. E., Ren, X. S., Lee, A., Skinner, K., Rogers, W., Clarke, J., et al. (1999). Health status in VA patients: Results from the Veterans Health Study. American Journal of Medical Quality, 14(1), 28–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller, D. R., & Pogach, L. (2008). Longitudinal approaches to evaluate health care quality and outcomes: The Veterans Health Administration diabetes epidemiology cohorts. Journal of Diabetes Science Technology, 2(1), 24–32.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, D. R., Safford, M. M., & Pogach, L. M. (2004). Who has diabetes? Best estimates of diabetes prevalence in the Department of Veterans Affairs based on computerized patient data. Diabetes Care, 27(Suppl 2), b10–b21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Damschroder, L. J., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Ubel, P. A. (2008). Considering adaptation in preference elicitations. Health Psychology, 27(3), 394–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kostopoulou, O. (2006). The transient nature of utilities and health preferences. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 304–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Menzel, P., Dolan, P., Richardson, J., & Olsen, J. A. (2002). The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: A preliminary normative analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 55(12), 2149–2158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dolan, P. (1996). Modelling valuations for health states: The effect of duration. Health Policy, 38(3), 189–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., et al. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27(3), 263–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., Clark, J. A., et al. (2004). Patient-reported measures of health: The Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27(1), 70–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tiwari, A., Tseng, C. L., Kern, E. F., Maney, M., Miller, D. R., & Pogach, L. (2007). Facility variation in utilization of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. The American Journal of Managed Care, 13(2), 73–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller, W. G. (2009). Estimating glomerular filtration rate. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 47(9), 1017–1019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Levey, A. S., Coresh, J., Balk, E., Kausz, A. T., Levin, A., Steffes, M. W., et al. (2003). National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139(2), 137–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tseng, C. L., Kern, E. F., Miller, D. R., Tiwari, A., Maney, M., Rajan, M., et al. (2008). Survival benefit of nephrologic care in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168(1), 55–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khanna, D., Ahmed, M., Yontz, D., Ginsburg, S. S., Park, G. S., Leonard, A., et al. (2008). The disutility of chronic gout. Quality of Life Research, 17(5), 815–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McDonough, C. M., & Tosteson, A. N. (2007). Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: How choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(2), 93–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(2), 151–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2006). Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. Journal of Health Economics, 25(2), 334–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A. A., Tountas, Y., & Niakas, D. (2009). Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 87–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dale, P. L., Hutton, J., & Elgazzar, H. (2008). Utility of health states in chronic kidney disease: A structured review of the literature. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 24(1), 193–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gorodetskaya, I., Zenios, S., McCulloch, C. E., Bostrom, A., Hsu, C. Y., Bindman, A. B., et al. (2005). Health-related quality of life and estimates of utility in chronic kidney disease. Kidney International, 68(6), 2801–2808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Davison, S. N., Jhangri, G. S., & Feeny, D. H. (2009). Comparing the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) with the Short Form-36 preference-based SF-6D in chronic kidney disease. Value Health, 12(2), 340–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chapman, B. P., Franks, P., Duberstein, P. R., & Jerant, A. (2009). Differences between individual and societal health state valuations: Any link with personality? Medical Care, 47(8), 902–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mann, R., Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Economics, 18(3), 363–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ara, R., & Brazier, J. (2008). Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health, 11(7), 1131–1143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Franks, P., Lubetkin, E. I., Gold, M. R., & Tancredi, D. J. (2003). Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: Convergent validity in a low-income, minority population. Medical Care, 41(11), 1277–1283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Franks, P., Lubetkin, E. I., Gold, M. R., Tancredi, D. J., & Jia, H. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(3), 247–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fryback, D. G., Lawrence, W. F., Martin, P. A., Klein, R., & Klein, B. E. (1997). Predicting Quality of Well-being scores from the SF-36: Results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Medical Decision Making, 17(1), 1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gray, A. M., Rivero-Arias, O., & Clarke, P. M. (2006). Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Medical Decision Making, 26(1), 18–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hawthorne, G., Densley, K., Pallant, J. F., Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis. Quality of Life Research, 17(9), 1183–1193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lawrence, W. F., & Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 160–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Le, Q. A., & Doctor, J. N. (2011). Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using Bayesian networks: An empirical analysis converting SF-12 into EQ-5D utility index in a national US sample. Medical Care, 49(5), 451–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Isacson, D. G., & Borgquist, L. (1999). The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Medical Decision Making, 19(2), 128–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Roberts, J. (2009). Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: How reliable is the relationship? Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sengupta, N., Nichol, M. B., Wu, J., & Globe, D. (2004). Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Medical Care, 42(9), 927–937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ferreira, L. N., Ferreira, P. L., Pereira, L. N., Brazier, J., & Rowen, D. (2010). A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health, 13(5), 624–630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Arnold, D., Girling, A., Stevens, A., & Lilford, R. (2009). Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: Review and empirical analysis. British Medical Journal, 339, b2688.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schmidlin, M., Fritsch, K., Matthews, F., Thurnheer, R., Senn, O., & Bloch, K. E. (2010). Utility indices in patients with the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Respiration, 79(3), 200–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mangala Rajan
    • 1
  • Kuan-Chi Lai
    • 2
  • Chin-Lin Tseng
    • 1
    • 3
  • Shirley Qian
    • 4
  • Alfredo Selim
    • 4
  • Lewis Kazis
    • 4
  • Leonard Pogach
    • 1
    • 3
  • Anushua Sinha
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Healthcare Knowledge ManagementVeterans Health Administration New JerseyEast OrangeUSA
  2. 2.Robert Wood Johnson Medical School - University of Medicine and Dentistry of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.Department of Preventive Medicine and Community HealthNew Jersey Medical School - University of Medicine and Dentistry of New JerseyNewarkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for the Assessment of Pharmaceutical Practices (CAPP)Boston University School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations