J C Davis1, T Liu-Ambrose, K M Khan, M C Robertson, C A Marra. 1. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, VCH Research Institute, The University of British Columbia, Research Pavilion, 7th floor, 828 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. Jennifer.davis@ubc.ca
Abstract
SUMMARY: Using two instruments (SF-6D and EQ-5D) to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), we conducted an economic evaluation of a 12-month randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up study in older women to evaluate the value for money of two doses of resistance training compared with balance and tone classes. We found that the incremental QALYs estimated from the SF-6D were two- to threefold greater than those estimated from the EQ-5D. INTRODUCTION: Decision makers must continually choose between existing and new interventions. Hence, economic evaluations are increasingly prevalent. The impact of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimates using different instruments on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) is not well understood in older adults. Thus, we compared ICERs, in older women, estimated by the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and the Short Form-6D (SF-6D) to discuss implications on decision making. METHODS: Using both the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, we compared the incremental cost per QALY gained in a randomized controlled trial of resistance training in 155 community-dwelling women aged 65 to 75 years. The 12-month randomized controlled trial included a subsequent 12-month follow-up. Our focus, the follow-up study, included 123 of the 155 participants from the Brain Power study; 98 took part in the economic evaluation (twice-weekly balance and tone exercises, n = 28; once-weekly resistance training, n = 35; twice-weekly resistance training, n = 35). Our primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per QALY gained of once- or twice-weekly resistance training compared with balance and tone exercises. RESULTS: At cessation of the follow-up study, the incremental QALY was -0.051 (EQ-5D) and -0.144 (SF-6D) for the once-weekly resistance training group and -0.081 (EQ-5D) and -0.127 (SF-6D) for the twice-weekly resistance training group compared with balance and tone classes. CONCLUSION: The incremental QALYs estimated from the SF-6D were two- to threefold greater than those estimated from the EQ-5D. Given the large magnitude of difference, the choice of preference-based utility instrument may substantially impact health care decisions.
RCT Entities:
SUMMARY: Using two instruments (SF-6D and EQ-5D) to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), we conducted an economic evaluation of a 12-month randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up study in older women to evaluate the value for money of two doses of resistance training compared with balance and tone classes. We found that the incremental QALYs estimated from the SF-6D were two- to threefold greater than those estimated from the EQ-5D. INTRODUCTION: Decision makers must continually choose between existing and new interventions. Hence, economic evaluations are increasingly prevalent. The impact of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimates using different instruments on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) is not well understood in older adults. Thus, we compared ICERs, in older women, estimated by the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and the Short Form-6D (SF-6D) to discuss implications on decision making. METHODS: Using both the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, we compared the incremental cost per QALY gained in a randomized controlled trial of resistance training in 155 community-dwelling women aged 65 to 75 years. The 12-month randomized controlled trial included a subsequent 12-month follow-up. Our focus, the follow-up study, included 123 of the 155 participants from the Brain Power study; 98 took part in the economic evaluation (twice-weekly balance and tone exercises, n = 28; once-weekly resistance training, n = 35; twice-weekly resistance training, n = 35). Our primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per QALY gained of once- or twice-weekly resistance training compared with balance and tone exercises. RESULTS: At cessation of the follow-up study, the incremental QALY was -0.051 (EQ-5D) and -0.144 (SF-6D) for the once-weekly resistance training group and -0.081 (EQ-5D) and -0.127 (SF-6D) for the twice-weekly resistance training group compared with balance and tone classes. CONCLUSION: The incremental QALYs estimated from the SF-6D were two- to threefold greater than those estimated from the EQ-5D. Given the large magnitude of difference, the choice of preference-based utility instrument may substantially impact health care decisions.
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Carlo A Marra; B Lynn Beattie; M Clare Robertson; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Peter Graf; Lindsay S Nagamatsu; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-12-13
Authors: Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Claire Jenkinson; Michael Doherty; David K Whynes; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Health Econ Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Elisabeth Fenwick; Deborah A Marshall; Gordon Blackhouse; Humberto Vidaillet; April Slee; Lynn Shemanski; Adrian R Levy Journal: Value Health Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Ping Zhang; Karen M Atkinson; George A Bray; Haiying Chen; Jeanne M Clark; Mace Coday; Gareth R Dutton; Caitlin Egan; Mark A Espeland; Mary Evans; John P Foreyt; Frank L Greenway; Edward W Gregg; Helen P Hazuda; James O Hill; Edward S Horton; Van S Hubbard; Peter J Huckfeldt; Sharon D Jackson; John M Jakicic; Robert W Jeffery; Karen C Johnson; Steven E Kahn; Tina Killean; William C Knowler; Mary Korytkowski; Cora E Lewis; Nisa M Maruthur; Sara Michaels; Maria G Montez; David M Nathan; Jennifer Patricio; Anne Peters; Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Henry Pownall; Bruce Redmon; Julia T Rushing; Helmut Steinburg; Thomas A Wadden; Rena R Wing; Holly Wyatt; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Karim M Khan; Adriaan Windt; Jennifer C Davis; Martin Dawes; Teresa Liu-Ambrose; Ken Madden; Carlo A Marra; Laura Housden; Christiane Hoppmann; David J Adams Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yang Chen; Manuel Gomes; Jason V Garcia; Ross J Hunter; Anthony W Chow; Mehul Dhinoja; Richard J Schilling; Martin Lowe; Pier D Lambiase Journal: Open Heart Date: 2020-01-28