OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this methodological study was to to provide insight into the under-addressed issue of the longitudinal predictive ability of mapping models. Post-intervention predicted and reported utilities were compared, and the effect of disease severity on the observed differences was examined. METHODS: A cohort of 120 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (60.0% female, mean age 59.0) embarking on therapy with biological agents completed the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) and the EQ-5D at baseline, and at 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. OLS regression produced a mapping equation to estimate post-intervention EQ-5D utilities from baseline MHAQ data. Predicted and reported utilities were compared with t test, and the prediction error was modeled, using fixed effects, in terms of covariates such as age, gender, time, disease duration, treatment, RF, DAS28 score, predicted and reported EQ-5D. RESULTS: The OLS model (RMSE = 0.207, R(2) = 45.2%) consistently underestimated future utilities, with a mean prediction error of 6.5%. Mean absolute differences between reported and predicted EQ-5D utilities at 3, 6 and 12 months exceeded the typically reported MID of the EQ-5D (0.03). According to the fixed-effects model, time, lower predicted EQ-5D and higher DAS28 scores had a significant impact on prediction errors, which appeared increasingly negative for lower reported EQ-5D scores, i.e., predicted utilities tended to be lower than reported ones in more severe health states. CONCLUSIONS: This study builds upon existing research having demonstrated the potential usefulness of mapping disease-specific instruments onto utility measures. The specific issue of longitudinal validity is addressed, as mapping models derived from baseline patients need to be validated on post-therapy samples. The underestimation of post-treatment utilities in the present study, at least in more severe patients, warrants further research before it is prudent to conduct cost-utility analyses in the context of RA by means of the MHAQ alone.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this methodological study was to to provide insight into the under-addressed issue of the longitudinal predictive ability of mapping models. Post-intervention predicted and reported utilities were compared, and the effect of disease severity on the observed differences was examined. METHODS: A cohort of 120 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (60.0% female, mean age 59.0) embarking on therapy with biological agents completed the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) and the EQ-5D at baseline, and at 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. OLS regression produced a mapping equation to estimate post-intervention EQ-5D utilities from baseline MHAQ data. Predicted and reported utilities were compared with t test, and the prediction error was modeled, using fixed effects, in terms of covariates such as age, gender, time, disease duration, treatment, RF, DAS28 score, predicted and reported EQ-5D. RESULTS: The OLS model (RMSE = 0.207, R(2) = 45.2%) consistently underestimated future utilities, with a mean prediction error of 6.5%. Mean absolute differences between reported and predicted EQ-5D utilities at 3, 6 and 12 months exceeded the typically reported MID of the EQ-5D (0.03). According to the fixed-effects model, time, lower predicted EQ-5D and higher DAS28 scores had a significant impact on prediction errors, which appeared increasingly negative for lower reported EQ-5D scores, i.e., predicted utilities tended to be lower than reported ones in more severe health states. CONCLUSIONS: This study builds upon existing research having demonstrated the potential usefulness of mapping disease-specific instruments onto utility measures. The specific issue of longitudinal validity is addressed, as mapping models derived from baseline patients need to be validated on post-therapy samples. The underestimation of post-treatment utilities in the present study, at least in more severe patients, warrants further research before it is prudent to conduct cost-utility analyses in the context of RA by means of the MHAQ alone.
Authors: Nick Kontodimopoulos; Evelina Pappa; Dimitris Niakas; John Yfantopoulos; Christina Dimitrakaki; Yannis Tountas Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Mark Kosinski; Sara C Kujawski; Richard Martin; Lee A Wanke; Mary C Buatti; John E Ware; Eleanor M Perfetto Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Mark J Harrison; Mark Lunt; Suzanne M M Verstappen; Kath D Watson; Nick J Bansback; Deborah P M Symmons Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Evangelos Kalaitzakis; Maria Benito de Valle; Monira Rahman; Björn Lindkvist; Einar Björnsson; Roger Chapman; Nick Kontodimopoulos Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Rahul Khairnar; Lyudmila DeMora; Howard M Sandler; W Robert Lee; Ester Villalonga-Olives; C Daniel Mullins; Francis B Palumbo; Deborah W Bruner; Fadia T Shaya; Soren M Bentzen; Amit B Shah; Shawn Malone; Jeff M Michalski; Ian S Dayes; Samantha A Seaward; Michele Albert; Adam D Currey; Thomas M Pisansky; Yuhchyau Chen; Eric M Horwitz; Albert S DeNittis; Felix Feng; Mark V Mishra Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-06