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

BackgroundAssessments 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.MethodsPooled 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

[1]  Mark Sculpher,et al.  REPORT BY THE DECISION SUPPORT UNIT , 2010 .

[2]  P. Langley,et al.  The impact of pain on labor force participation, absenteeism and presenteeism in the European Union , 2010, Journal of medical economics.

[3]  S. Bryan,et al.  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? , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  K. Muir,et al.  Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Open Access Comparing the Performance of the Eq-5d and Sf-6d When Measuring the Benefits of Alleviating Knee Pain Background , 2009 .

[5]  S. Bryan,et al.  Measuring health-related utility: , 2005, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[6]  G. Bonsel,et al.  Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) , 2011, Quality of Life Research.

[7]  N. Bellamy.  WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. , 2002, The Journal of rheumatology.

[8]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. , 2006, Journal of health economics.

[9]  S. J. Whitehead,et al.  Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. , 2010, British medical bulletin.

[10]  J. Cairns,et al.  SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility , 2009, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[11]  Stirling Bryan,et al.  An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. , 2003, Health economics.

[12]  J. Brazier,et al.  A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. , 2004, Health economics.

[13]  T. Toelle,et al.  The burden of neuropathic pain: results from a cross‐sectional survey , 2006, European journal of pain.

[14]  A. Okamoto,et al.  Efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release for chronic osteoarthritis pain and low back pain , 2010, Advances in therapy.

[15]  O. Ekholm,et al.  Epidemiology of chronic pain in Denmark: An update , 2009, European journal of pain.

[16]  P. Langley,et al.  The societal impact of pain in the European Union: health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilization , 2010, Journal of medical economics.

[17]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[18]  C. Rauschkolb,et al.  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 , 2010, Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy.

[19]  A. Williams.  EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[20]  S A Marion,et al.  Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[22]  N. Bansback,et al.  The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[23]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[24]  A. Lerdal,et al.  Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain in the general Norwegian population , 2004, European journal of pain.

[25]  S. Bryan,et al.  Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? , 2005, The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care.

[26]  C. Bünger,et al.  Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[27]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Quality-adjusted life years , 2008, Practical Neurology.

[28]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  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. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.

[29]  B. Collett,et al.  Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment , 2006, European journal of pain.

[30]  A. Tosteson,et al.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. , 2007, PharmacoEconomics.

[31]  P. Langley,et al.  The prevalence, correlates and treatment of pain in the European Union , 2011, Current medical research and opinion.