Janel Hanmer1, Dasha Cherepanov2, Mari Palta3, Robert M Kaplan4, David Feeny3,5, Dennis G Fryback6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA (JH) 2. Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC, Beverly Hills, CA (DC) 3. Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI (MP, DF) 4. UCLA Department of Health Services, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (RMK) 5. Department of Economics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada (DF) 6. Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, ON (DGF)
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Many cost-utility analyses rely on generic utility measures for estimates of disease impact. Commonly used generic preference-based indexes may generate different absolute estimates of disease burden despite sharing anchors of dead at 0 and full health at 1.0. OBJECTIVE: We compare the impact of 16 prevalent chronic health conditions using 6 utility-based indexes of health and a visual analog scale. DESIGN: Data were from the National Health Measurement Study (NHMS), a cross-sectional telephone survey of 3844 adults aged 35 to 89 years in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The NHMS included the EuroQol-5D-3L, Health and Activities Limitation Index (HALex), Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), preference-based scoring for the SF-36v2 (SF-6D), Quality of Well-Being Scale, and visual analog scale. Respondents self-reported 16 chronic conditions. Survey-weighted regression analyses for each index with all health conditions, age, and sex were used to estimate health condition impact estimates in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost over 10 years. All analyses were stratified by ages 35 to 69 and 70 to 89 years. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the indexes for estimates of the absolute impact of most conditions. On average, condition impacts were the smallest with the SF-6D and EQ-5D-3L and the largest with the HALex and HUI3. Likewise, the estimated loss of QALYs varied across indexes. Condition impact estimates for EQ-5D-3L, HUI2, HUI3, and SF-6D generally had strong Spearman correlations across conditions (i.e., >0.69). LIMITATIONS: This analysis uses cross-sectional data and lacks health condition severity information. CONCLUSIONS: Health condition impact estimates vary substantially across the indexes. These results imply that it is difficult to standardize results across cost-utility analyses that use different utility measures.
IMPORTANCE: Many cost-utility analyses rely on generic utility measures for estimates of disease impact. Commonly used generic preference-based indexes may generate different absolute estimates of disease burden despite sharing anchors of dead at 0 and full health at 1.0. OBJECTIVE: We compare the impact of 16 prevalent chronic health conditions using 6 utility-based indexes of health and a visual analog scale. DESIGN: Data were from the National Health Measurement Study (NHMS), a cross-sectional telephone survey of 3844 adults aged 35 to 89 years in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The NHMS included the EuroQol-5D-3L, Health and Activities Limitation Index (HALex), Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), preference-based scoring for the SF-36v2 (SF-6D), Quality of Well-Being Scale, and visual analog scale. Respondents self-reported 16 chronic conditions. Survey-weighted regression analyses for each index with all health conditions, age, and sex were used to estimate health condition impact estimates in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost over 10 years. All analyses were stratified by ages 35 to 69 and 70 to 89 years. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the indexes for estimates of the absolute impact of most conditions. On average, condition impacts were the smallest with the SF-6D and EQ-5D-3L and the largest with the HALex and HUI3. Likewise, the estimated loss of QALYs varied across indexes. Condition impact estimates for EQ-5D-3L, HUI2, HUI3, and SF-6D generally had strong Spearman correlations across conditions (i.e., >0.69). LIMITATIONS: This analysis uses cross-sectional data and lacks health condition severity information. CONCLUSIONS: Health condition impact estimates vary substantially across the indexes. These results imply that it is difficult to standardize results across cost-utility analyses that use different utility measures.
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: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mari Palta; Han-Yang Chen; Robert M Kaplan; David Feeny; Dasha Cherepanov; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Dennis W Raisch; Patricia Feeney; David C Goff; K M Venkat Narayan; Patrick J O'Connor; Ping Zhang; Don G Hire; Mark D Sullivan Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: David G T Whitehurst; Nicole Mittmann; Vanessa K Noonan; Marcel F Dvorak; Stirling Bryan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Janel Hanmer; Barry Dewitt; Lan Yu; Joel Tsevat; Mark Roberts; Dennis Revicki; Paul A Pilkonis; Rachel Hess; Ron D Hays; Baruch Fischhoff; David Feeny; David Condon; David Cella Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jing Zhang; Barry Dewitt; Evan Tang; Daniel Breitner; Mohammed Saqib; Dan Li; Rabail Siddiqui; Nathaniel Edwards; John Devin Peipert; Ron D Hays; Janel Hanmer; Istvan Mucsi Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 10.614