Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

He Sun⁴  Zhijun Chen³  Jin Zhou¹  Fei-Li Zhao²  Yuerong Han⁴  Jing Wu⁴ 

[1] Tianjin Chest Hospital, No 93, Xi¿an Road, Tianjin, Heping District, China;Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308, NSW, Australia;Affiliated Hospital of Logistics University of Chinese People¿s Armed Police Force, 220 Chenglin Rd, Tianjin, Dongli District, China;School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, No.92 Weijin Rd, Tianjin 300072, Nankai District, P R China

关键词: China;    Utility;    SF-6D;    EQ-5D;    Stable angina;    Quality of life;   

Others  :  1164510
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0156-6

 received in 2014-01-01, accepted in 2014-10-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Objectives

Several preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments have been published and widely used in different populations. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument in therapeutic area of stable angina. This study compared and validated the psychometric properties of two generic preference-based instruments, the EQ-5D and SF-6D, among Chinese stable angina patients.

Methods

Convergent validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D was examined with eight a priori hypotheses from stable angina patients in conjunction with Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). Responsiveness was compared using the effect size (ES), relative efficiency (RE) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Agreement between the EQ-5D and SF-6D was tested using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. Factors affecting utility difference were explored with multiple linear regression analysis.

Results

In 411 patients (mean age 68.08?±?11.35), mean utility scores (SD) were 0.78 (0.15) for the EQ-5D and 0.68 (0.12) for the SF-6D. Validity was demonstrated by the moderate to strong correlation coefficients (Range: 0.368-0.594, P

Conclusions

Both EQ-5D and SF-6D are valid and sensitive preference-based HRQoL instruments in Chinese stable angina patients. The SF-6D may be a more effective tool with lower ceiling effect and greater sensitivity. Further study is needed to compare other properties, such as reliability and longitudinal response.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Wu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Earnshaw J, Lewis G: NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26(9):725-727.
• [2]Sullivan SD, Lyles A, Luce B, Grigar J: AMCP guidance for submission of clinical and economic evaluation data to support formulary listing in U.S. health plans and pharmacy benefits. J Manag Care Pharm 2001, 7:272-282.
• [3]Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O¿Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, New York; 2005.
• [4]Kopec JA, Willison KD: A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56(4):317-325.
• [5]Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC: Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health 2000, 21:587-611.
• [6]Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC: Health status: types of validity and the index of wellbeing. Health Serv Res 1976, 11(4):478-507.
• [7]Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M: Multi-attribute preference functions. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995, 7(6):503-520.
• [8]Rabin R, De Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):337-343.
• [9]Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA: A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):358-370.
• [10]Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002, 21(2):271-292.
• [11]Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A: Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One 2012, 7(2):e31115.
• [12]Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, Gao C, Luo N: Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health 2014, 17(5):579-604.
• [13]Zhao FL, Yue M, Yang H, Wang T, Wu JH, Li SC: Validation and comparison of EuroQol and short form 6D in chronic prostatitis patients. Value Health 2010, 13(5):649-656.
• [14]Kontodimopoulos N, Argiriou M, Theakos N, Niakas D: The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure. Eur J Health Econ 2011, 12(4):383-391.
• [15]Van Stel HF, Buskens E: Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Obradovic M, Lal A, Liedgens H: Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:110. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Mulhern B, Meadows K: The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and Diabetes Health Profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014, 12:42. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]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(9):1195-1205.
• [19]Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, Donker MC, Hakkaart L: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ 2006, 15(11):1229-1236.
• [20]Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, Brazier J, Ferrer M: Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res 2010, 19(6):853-864.
• [21]Guidelines on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris. 2006.
• [22]An Analysis Report of National Health Services Survey in China. China Union Medical University Press, Beijing; 2008.
• [23]Kannel WB, Feinleib M: Natural history of angina pectoris in the Framingham study: Prognosis and survival. Am J Cardiol 1972, 29(2):154-163.
• [24]Gandjour A, Lauterbach KW: Review of quality-of-life evaluations in patients with angina pectoris. Pharmacoeconomics 1999, 16(2):141-152.
• [25]Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, Deyo RA, Prodzinski J, McDonell M, Fihn SD: Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995, 25(2):333-341.
• [26]Wilson A, Wiklund I, Lahti T, Wahl M: A summary index for the assessment of quality of life in angina pectoris. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 44(9):981-988.
• [27]Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B: SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. New England Medical Center, The Health Institute, Boston, MA; 1993.
• [28]Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J, Papp E: A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980, 34(4):281-286.
• [29]McGillion MH, Croxford R, Watt-Watson J, Lefort S, Stevens B, Coyte P: Cost of illness for chronic stable angina patients enrolled in a self-management education trial. Can J Cardiol 2008, 24(10):759-764.
• [30]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford University Press, New York; 2008.
• [31]Wang H, Kindig DA, Mullahy J: Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Qual Life Res 2005, 14(1):119-132.
• [32]Shi JF, Kang DJ, Qi SZ, Wu HY, Liu YC, Sun LJ, Li L, Yang Y, Li Q, Feng XX, Zhang LQ, Li J, Li XL, Yang Y, Niyazi M, Xu AD, Liu JH, Xiao Q, Li LK, Wang XZ, Qiao YL: Impact of genital warts on health related quality of life in men and women in mainland China: a multicenter hospital-based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:153. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Lam CL, Brazier J, McGhee SM: Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health 2008, 11(2):295-303.
• [34]Liu XT, Kong SP, Liao ZY, Sike L: Asessment study on physical function and the quality of life for CHD patients with SAQ. Chin Behav Sci 1997, 6:49-51. [in Chinese]
• [35]Spilker B: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia; 1996.
• [36]Jin H, Wang B, Gao Q, Chao J, Wang S, Tian L, Liu P: Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D utility in rural residents of Jiangsu Province, china. PLoS One 2012, 7(7):e41550.
• [37]Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Whynes DK, Muir KR: A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged?>?or=?45 years. Health Econ 2008, 17(7):815-832.
• [38]Berra K, Fletcher B, Miller NH: Chronic stable angina: Addressing the needs of patients through risk reduction, education and support. Clin Invest Med 2008, 31(6):E391-E399.
• [39]Martins WP, Zanardi JV: Subgroup analysis and statistical power. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011, 159(1):244. (Author reply 245)
• [40]Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989, 27(Suppl 3):S178-S189.
• [41]Fayers P, Machin D: Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis, and Interpretation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester; 2000.
• [42]Rabe-Hesketh S, Everitt : A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata. CRC Press/Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton; 2006.
• [43]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1(8476):307-310.
• [44]Mason CH, Perreault WD Jr: Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. J Mark Res 1991, 28:268-280.
• [45]Le Grande MR, Elliott PC, Worcester MU, Murphy BM, Goble AJ, Kugathasan V, Sinha K: Identifying illness perception schemata and their association with depression and quality of life in cardiac patients. Psychol Health Med 2012, 17(6):709-722.
• [46]Kimble LP, McGuire DB, Dunbar SB, Fazio S, De A, Weintraub WS, Strickland OS: Gender differences in pain characteristics of chronic stable angina and perceived physical limitation in patients with coronary artery disease. Pain 2003, 101(1¿2):45-53.
• [47]Sykes DH, Hanley M, Boyle DM, Higginson JD, Wilson C: Socioeconomic status, social environment, depression and postdischarge adjustment of the cardiac patient. J Psychosom Res 1999, 46(1):83-98.
• [48]Kington RS, Smith JP: Socioeconomic status and racial and ethnic differences in functional status associated with chronic diseases. Am J Public Health 1997, 87(5):805-810.
• [49]Bharmal M, Thomas J 3rd: Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 2006, 9(4):262-271.
• [50]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-5 L). Qual Life Res 2011, 20(10):1727-1736.
• [51]Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Swinburn P, Busschbach J: Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5 L compared to the EQ-5D-3 L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 2013, 22(7):1717-1727.
• [52]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(9):873-884.
• [53]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 2005, 14(11):1169-1189.
• [54]Longworth L, Bryan S: An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ 2003, 12:1061-1067.
• [55]Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M: Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000, 17(2):151-165.