Mapping onto Eq-5 D for patients in poor health

BackgroundAn increasing amount of studies report mapping algorithms which predict EQ-5 D utility values using disease specific non-preference-based measures. Yet many mapping algorithms have been found to systematically overpredict EQ-5 D utility values for patients in poor health. Currently there are no guidelines on how to deal with this problem. This paper is concerned with the question of why overestimation of EQ-5 D utility values occurs for patients in poor health, and explores possible solutions.MethodThree existing datasets are used to estimate mapping algorithms and assess existing mapping algorithms from the literature mapping the cancer-specific EORTC-QLQ C-30 and the arthritis-specific Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) onto the EQ-5 D. Separate mapping algorithms are estimated for poor health states. Poor health states are defined using a cut-off point for QLQ-C30 and HAQ, which is determined using association with EQ-5 D values.ResultsAll mapping algorithms suffer from overprediction of utility values for patients in poor health. The large decrement of reporting 'extreme problems' in the EQ-5 D tariff, few observations with the most severe level in any EQ-5 D dimension and many observations at the least severe level in any EQ-5 D dimension led to a bimodal distribution of EQ-5 D index values, which is related to the overprediction of utility values for patients in poor health. Separate algorithms are here proposed to predict utility values for patients in poor health, where these are selected using cut-off points for HAQ-DI (> 2.0) and QLQ C-30 (< 45 average of QLQ C-30 functioning scales). The QLQ-C30 separate algorithm performed better than existing mapping algorithms for predicting utility values for patients in poor health, but still did not accurately predict mean utility values. A HAQ separate algorithm could not be estimated due to data restrictions.ConclusionMapping algorithms overpredict utility values for patients in poor health but are used in cost-effectiveness analyses nonetheless. Guidelines can be developed on when the use of a mapping algorithms is inappropriate, for instance through the identification of cut-off points. Cut-off points on a disease specific questionnaire can be identified through association with the causes of overprediction. The cut-off points found in this study represent severely impaired health. Specifying a separate mapping algorithm to predict utility values for individuals in poor health greatly reduces overprediction, but does not fully solve the problem.

[1]  Haomiao Jia,et al.  Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a National US Sample , 2004, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures , 2010, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[3]  J. Baars,et al.  Overall and event-free survival are not improved by the use of myeloablative therapy following intensified chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma: a prospective randomized phase 3 study. , 2002, Blood.

[4]  M. King The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30 , 1996, Quality of Life Research.

[5]  Nick Kontodimopoulos,et al.  Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[6]  D. Osoba,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[7]  John Brazier,et al.  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). , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[8]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences , 2010, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[9]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[10]  J. Fries,et al.  The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. , 2003, The Journal of rheumatology.

[11]  Bonnie Bruce,et al.  The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: Dimensions and Practical Applications , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[12]  M. van der Pol,et al.  Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[13]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. , 2006, Health economics.

[14]  M. Versteegh,et al.  Mapping QLQ-C 30 , HAQ , and MSIS-29 on EQ-5 D , 2012 .

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

[16]  J. Hazes,et al.  Work and sick leave among patients with early inflammatory joint conditions. , 2008, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[17]  Oliver Rivero-Arias,et al.  Mapping the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) Measurement into the Generic EuroQol (EQ-5D) Health Outcome , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  P. Sonneveld,et al.  CHOP compared with CHOP plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  J. Kopec,et al.  A Comparison of Four Indirect Methods of Assessing Utility Values in Rheumatoid Arthritis , 2004, Medical care.

[20]  Julia Earnshaw,et al.  NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[21]  M. Kosinski,et al.  Mapping MOS Sleep Scale scores to SF‑6D utility index , 2007, Current medical research and opinion.

[22]  M. Versteegh,et al.  Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D , 2012, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  John Brazier,et al.  Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? , 2009, Health and quality of life outcomes.

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