PURPOSE: Comparative evidence regarding the responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D in arthritis patients is conflicting and insufficient across the range of disease severity. We examined the comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D in cohorts of patients with early inflammatory disease through to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Responsiveness was tested using the effect size (ES) and standardised response mean (SRM). Correlation of change in EQ-5D and SF-6D with disease specific measures was tested using Pearson correlations and the Steiger's Z test. Treatment response and self-reported change were used as anchors of important change. RESULTS: The EQ-5D was more responsive to deterioration (ES ratio (EQ-5D/SF-6D): 1.6-3.0) and the SF-6D more responsive to improvement (ES ratio (SF-6D/EQ-5D): 1.1-1.8) in health. The SF-6D did not respond well to deterioration in patients with established severe RA (ES and SRM 0.08). The EQ-5D provided larger absolute mean change estimates but with greater variance compared to the SF-6D. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D differs according to the direction of change. The level of mean change of the EQ-5D relative to the SF-6D has implications for cost-effectiveness analysis. Use of the SF-6D in patients with severe progressive disease may be inappropriate.
PURPOSE: Comparative evidence regarding the responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D in arthritispatients is conflicting and insufficient across the range of disease severity. We examined the comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D in cohorts of patients with early inflammatory disease through to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Responsiveness was tested using the effect size (ES) and standardised response mean (SRM). Correlation of change in EQ-5D and SF-6D with disease specific measures was tested using Pearson correlations and the Steiger's Z test. Treatment response and self-reported change were used as anchors of important change. RESULTS: The EQ-5D was more responsive to deterioration (ES ratio (EQ-5D/SF-6D): 1.6-3.0) and the SF-6D more responsive to improvement (ES ratio (SF-6D/EQ-5D): 1.1-1.8) in health. The SF-6D did not respond well to deterioration in patients with established severe RA (ES and SRM 0.08). The EQ-5D provided larger absolute mean change estimates but with greater variance compared to the SF-6D. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D differs according to the direction of change. The level of mean change of the EQ-5D relative to the SF-6D has implications for cost-effectiveness analysis. Use of the SF-6D in patients with severe progressive disease may be inappropriate.
Authors: Nick Bansback; Mark Harrison; John Brazier; Linda Davies; Jacek Kopec; Carlo Marra; Deborah Symmons; Aslam Anis Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-07-15
Authors: R Maini; E W St Clair; F Breedveld; D Furst; J Kalden; M Weisman; J Smolen; P Emery; G Harriman; M Feldmann; P Lipsky Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-12-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C A Marra; S A Marion; D P Guh; M Najafzadeh; F Wolfe; J M Esdaile; A E Clarke; M A Gignac; A H Anis Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-12-22 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Oriol Cunillera; Ricard Tresserras; Luis Rajmil; Gemma Vilagut; Pilar Brugulat; Mike Herdman; Anna Mompart; Antonia Medina; Yolanda Pardo; Jordi Alonso; John Brazier; Montse Ferrer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Dennis W Raisch; Heather M Campbell; David A Garnand; Mark A Jones; Mike R Sather; Rupali Naik; Walter Ling Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Roisin Adams; Benjamin M Craig; Cathal D Walsh; Douglas J Veale; Barry Bresnihan; Oliver FitzGerald; Michael Barry Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Roisin Adams; Cathal Walsh; Douglas Veale; Barry Bresnihan; Oliver FitzGerald; Michael Barry Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.981