Literature DB >> 21909728

SF-6D and EQ-5D result in widely divergent incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in a clinical trial of older women: implications for health policy decisions.

J C Davis1, T Liu-Ambrose, K M Khan, M C Robertson, C A Marra.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21909728      PMCID: PMC4508131          DOI: 10.1007/s00198-011-1770-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  30 in total

1.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

Authors:  R Brooks
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Sustained cognitive and economic benefits of resistance training among community-dwelling senior women: a 1-year follow-up study of the Brain Power study.

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

4.  Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility.

Authors:  Andrea Manca; Neil Hawkins; Mark J Sculpher
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Authors:  Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Michael Drummond
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-08-31       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community.

Authors:  M E Tinetti; M Speechley; S F Ginter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-12-29       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets.

Authors:  Aki Tsuchiya; John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2005-11-04       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments.

Authors:  Barbara Conner-Spady; Maria E Suarez-Almazor
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged >or= 45 years.

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

10.  Assessing the impact of censoring of costs and effects on health-care decision-making: an example using the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study.

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

View more
  8 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness of telecare management for pain and depression in patients with cancer: results from a randomized trial.

Authors:  Sung J Choi Yoo; John A Nyman; Andrea L Cheville; Kurt Kroenke
Journal:  Gen Hosp Psychiatry       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 3.238

2.  Comparison of trends in US health-related quality of life over the 2000s using the SF-6D, HALex, EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale versus a broader set of symptoms and impairments.

Authors:  Susan T Stewart; David M Cutler; Allison B Rosen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness of a Structured Lifestyle Intervention in Adults With Overweight/Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) Study.

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

4.  Group Medical Visits (GMVs) in primary care: an RCT of group-based versus individual appointments to reduce HbA1c in older people.

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

5.  Cost-utility analysis of case management for frail older people: effects of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Magnus Sandberg; Ulf Jakobsson; Patrik Midlöv; Jimmie Kristensson
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2015-05-30

6.  Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments.

Authors:  Fan Yang; Nancy Devlin; Nan Luo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-06-14

7.  Cost-effectiveness of ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischaemic cardiomyopathy: limitations in the trial evidence base.

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

Review 8.  A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care.

Authors:  Norma B Bulamu; Billingsley Kaambwa; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 3.186

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.