Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis

Implications for Clinical Trial-Based Evaluation

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this review was to describe the performance of health-utility measures in valuing the quality-of-life (QOL) impact of changes in osteoarthritis (OA)-related chronic pain when administered within a clinical trial setting. Because the collection of utility data within a clinical trial is not always feasible in the development of health economic models, utility data from prior non-randomised studies conducted among patients with OA were also summarized.

We conducted a literature review using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases. We selected studies employing validated direct and multiattribute measures of health utility: the standard gamble, time trade-off, EuroQol index, Health Utilities Index, SF-6D, 15D and the Assessment of Quality of Life measure.

We identified four randomized controlled trials and 17 observational studies. The results of prior clinical trials in which these health utility measures were used in evaluating OA are summarized and attributes of the utility measures such as the clinical importance and statistical significance of the results obtained are noted. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the utility measure to changes in co-administered non-utility based measures of health-related quality of life (e.g. visual analogue scale for pain, WOMAC™) are also reported. Five findings emerged.

First, the EQ-5D system was the most widely used metric to derive utilities. Second, for whatever utility measure was used, reported mean utilities for patient groups spanned a rather wide range of values across studies, potentially reflecting variation in illness severity, patient co-morbidities and/or patient treatment. Third, when studies reported more than one utility-based statistic, the utility valuations frequently differed by measure, suggesting that the choice of metric can potentially have an effect on QALY calculations. However, there was no consistent pattern as to which measure yielded the highest and lowest utility valuations. Fourth, changes in health-related QOL (HR-QOL) and utility measures displayed the expected relationships. When HR-QOL declined, the utility values also moved in this direction. The reverse was also true. In some instances, statistically significant changes in QOL measures were not mirrored by statistically significant changes in utility measures, suggesting that some studies may have been underpowered for the latter purpose. Finally, the body of clinical trial-based utility literature in OA was found to be relatively modest, with considerably more observational studies collecting utility data.

Based on the limited number of trial-based health-utility evaluations in OA to date, there can potentially be divergent findings with respect to clinical and statistical significance of changes in utility measures and corresponding measures of health status. Analysts should carefully evaluate issues of statistical power and clinical sensitivity in utilizing these measures in clinical trials of OA interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 2003; 81: 646–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Chronic rheumatic conditions[online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/chp/topics/rheumatic/en/index.html [Accessed 2008 Sep 9]

  3. Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38: 583–637

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, et al. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 288–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  7. Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006; 15: 653–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 89–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting Quality of Well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nord E. Unjustified use of the Quality of Well-Being Scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy 1993; 24: 45–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumann P. The CEA Registry[online]. Available from URL: https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear/default.aspx [Accessed 2008 Sep 9]

  12. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33: 344–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1523–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hawthorne G, Osborne R. Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure. Aust N Z J Public Health 2005; 29: 136–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cochrane T, Davey RC, Matthes Edwards SM. Randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of water-based therapy for lower limb osteoarthritis. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: iii-xi, 1

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McCarthy CJ, Mills PM, Pullen R, et al. Supplementation of a home-based exercise programme with a class-based programme for people with osteoarthritis of the knees: a randomised controlled trial and health economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: iii-61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin 2001; 17: 190–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002; 10: 506–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, et al. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999; 38: 870–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004; 13 (9): 873–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999; 38: 807–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, et al. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement: a comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 801–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, et al. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip: a five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 592–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolfe F, Hawley DJ. Measurement of the quality of life in rheumatic disorders using the EuroQol. Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36: 786–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Blanchard C, Feeny D, Mahon JL, et al. Is the Health Utilities Index responsive in total hip arthroplasty patients? J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 1046–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahon JL, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, et al. Health-related quality of life and mobility of patients awaiting elective total hip arthroplasty: a prospective study. CMAJ 2002; 167: 1115–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 1659–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hirvonen J, Blom M, Tuominen U, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients waiting for major joint replacement: a comparison between patients and population controls. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 3[online]. Available from URL: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1373609 [Accessed 2008 Sep 16]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rissanen P, Aro S, Slatis P, et al. Health and quality of life before and after hip or knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995; 10: 169–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rissanen P, Aro S, Sintonen H, et al. Quality of life and functional ability in hip and knee replacements: a prospective study. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 56–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Rissanen P, Aro S, Sintonen H, et al. Costs and cost-effectiveness in hip and knee replacements: a prospective study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13: 575–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ackerman IN, Graves SE, Wicks IP, et al. Severely compromised quality of life in women and those of lower socioeconomic status waiting for joint replacement surgery. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53: 653–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Whitfield K, Buchbinder R, Segal L, et al. Parsimonious and efficient assessment of health-related quality of life in osteoarthritis research: validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ethgen O, Tancredi A, Lejeune E, et al. Do utility values and willingness to pay suitably reflect health outcome in hip and knee osteoarthritis? A comparative analysis with the WOMAC Index. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 2452–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, et al. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75: 1619–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 490–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 4[online]. Available from URL: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=155547 [Accessed 2008 Sep 15]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006; 9: 213–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Xie F, Li SC, Luo N, et al. Comparison of the EuroEol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 1043–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 591–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000; 9: 109–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 611–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Segal L, Day SE, Chapman AB, et al. Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthrtis? Med J Aust 2004; 180: S11–7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by a contract with Merck & Co., Inc., and Hirsch S Ruchlin.

R.P. Insinga is an employee of Merck & Co., Inc., and so may potentially receive stock options.

H.S. Ruchlin is a consultant to Merck & Co., Inc., and has received grants from Merck & Co., Inc., in the past.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HSR, LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

    Hirsch S. Ruchlin

  2. Merck Research Laboratories, Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, Pennsylvania, USA

    Ralph P. Insinga

Authors
  1. Hirsch S. Ruchlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralph P. Insinga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph P. Insinga.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ruchlin, H.S., Insinga, R.P. A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 925–935 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826110-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826110-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation