Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain

Marko Obradovic, Arun Lal, Hiltrud Liedgens, Marko Obradovic, Arun Lal, Hiltrud Liedgens

Abstract

Background: Assessments of health-related quality of life and particularly utility values are important components of health economic analyses. Several instruments have been developed to measure utilities. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument within a therapeutic area such as chronic pain. The study compared two instruments - EQ-5D and SF-6D - for their performance and validity in patients with chronic pain.

Methods: Pooled data from three randomised, controlled clinical trials with two active treatment groups were used. The included patients suffered from osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. Differences between the utility measures were compared in terms of mean values at baseline and endpoint, Bland-Altman analysis, correlation between the dimensions, construct validity, and responsiveness.

Results: The analysis included 1977 patients, most with severe pain on the Numeric Rating Scale. The EQ-5D showed a greater mean change from baseline to endpoint compared with the SF-6D (0.43 to 0.58 versus 0.59 to 0.64). Bland-Altman analysis suggested the difference between two measures depended on the health status of a patient. Spearmans rank correlation showed moderate correlation between EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions. Construct validity showed both instruments could differentiate between patient subgroups with different severities of adverse events and analgesic efficacies but larger differences were detected with the EQ-5D. Similarly, when anchoring the measures to a disease-specific questionnaire - Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) - both questionnaires could differentiate between WOMAC severity levels but the EQ-5D showed greater differences. Responsiveness was also higher with the EQ-5D and for the subgroups in which improvements in health status were expected or when WOMAC severity level was reduced the improvements with EQ-5D were higher than with SF-6D.

Conclusions: This analysis showed that the mean EQ-5D scores were lower than mean SF-6D scores in patients with chronic pain. EQ-5D seemed to have higher construct validity and responsiveness in these patients.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland Altman plot for EQ-5D and SF-6D scores at baseline.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution across severity levels of the EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions at baseline. (a) Distribution across severity levels of the EQ-5D dimensions at baseline. (b) Distribution across severity levels of the SF-6D dimensions at baseline.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in terms of responsiveness. (a) Change in utility from different WOMAC categories at baseline to ‘none to mild’ at endpoint. (b) Change in utility from different WOMAC categories at baseline to ‘mild-to-moderate’ at endpoint.

References

    1. Rustoen T, Wahl AK, Hanestad BR, Lerdal A, Paul S, Miaskowski C. Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain in the general Norwegian population. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:555–565. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2004.02.002.
    1. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:287–333. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009.
    1. Sjogren P, Ekholm O, Peuckmann V, Gronbaek M. Epidemiology of chronic pain in Denmark: an update. Eur J Pain. 2009;13:287–292. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.04.007.
    1. Langley P, Muller-Schwefe G, Nicolaou A, Liedgens H, Pergolizzi J, Varrassi G. The impact of pain on labor force participation, absenteeism and presenteeism in the European Union. J Med Econ. 2010;13:662–672. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2010.529379.
    1. Langley P, Muller-Schwefe G, Nicolaou A, Liedgens H, Pergolizzi J, Varrassi G. The societal impact of pain in the European Union: health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilization. J Med Econ. 2010;13:571–581. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2010.516709.
    1. Langley PC. The prevalence, correlates and treatment of pain in the European Union. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:463–480. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.542136.
    1. McDermott AM, Toelle TR, Rowbotham DJ, Schaefer CP, Dukes EM. The burden of neuropathic pain: results from a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.01.014.
    1. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033.
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the evaluation of health care programmes . Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    1. Brazier J, Longworth L. NICE DSU technical support document 8: an introduction to the measurement and valuation of health for NICE submissions report by the Decision Support Unit. NICE; 2011. .
    1. The EuroQol Group.EuroQol–a. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–292. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.
    1. Lange B, Kuperwasser B, Okamoto A, Steup A, Haufel T, Ashworth J, Etropolski M. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release for chronic osteoarthritis pain and low back pain. Adv Ther. 2010;27:381–399. doi: 10.1007/s12325-010-0036-3.
    1. Afilalo M, Etropolski MS, Kuperwasser B, Kelly K, Okamoto A, Van HI, Steup A, Lange B, Rauschkolb C, Haeussler J. Efficacy and safety of Tapentadol extended release compared with oxycodone controlled release for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain related to osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study. Clin Drug Investig. 2010;30:489–505. doi: 10.2165/11533440-000000000-00000.
    1. Buynak R, Shapiro DY, Okamoto A, Van HI, Rauschkolb C, Steup A, Lange B, Lange C, Etropolski M. Efficacy and safety of tapentadol extended release for the management of chronic low back pain: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled Phase III study. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2010;11:1787–1804. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2010.497720.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310.
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.
    1. Bellamy N. WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:2473–2476.
    1. Sogaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS, Bunger C, Christiansen T. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health. 2009;12:606–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00466.x.
    1. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Doherty M, Jenkinson C, Muir KR. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2009;7:12. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-7-12.
    1. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, McCoy MJ, Verstappen SM, Watson K, Symmons DP. The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1195–1205. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9539-2.
    1. Whitehurst DG, Bryan S. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health. 2011;14:531–538. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13:873–884. doi: 10.1002/hec.866.
    1. Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2004;12:1061–1067.
    1. Bryan S, Longworth L. Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:253–260. doi: 10.1007/s10198-005-0299-9.
    1. 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. 2009;10:15–23. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0097-2.
    1. Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Roberts J. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ. 2006;25:334–346. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.003.
    1. Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, Najafzadeh M, Wolfe F, Esdaile JM, Clarke AE, Gignac MA, Anis AH. Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:616–624. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.006.
    1. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmaco Economics. 2007;25:93–106. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200725020-00003.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa