Merrill Thomas1,2, Philip G Jones1,2, David J Cohen2, Arnold V Suzanne1,2, Elizabeth A Magnuson1, Kaijun Wang1, Vinod H Thourani3, Gregg C Fonarow4, Alexander T Sandhu5, John A Spertus1,2. 1. Cardiovascular Research, Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, 4401 Wornall Road, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Marcus Valve Center, Piedmont Heart Institute, 95 Collier Road Northwest, Suite 5015, Atlanta, GA 30309, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, 100 UCLA Medical Plaza, Suite 630, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of health status benefits, cost-effectiveness, and value of new heart failure therapies is critical for supporting their use. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) measures patients' heart failure-specific health status but does not provide utilities needed for cost-effectiveness analyses. We mapped the KCCQ scores to EQ-5D scores so that estimates of societal-based utilities can be generated to support economic analyses. METHODS: Using data from two US cohort studies, we developed models for predicting EQ-5D utilities (3L and 5L versions) from the KCCQ (23- and 12-item versions). In addition to predicting scores directly, we considered predicting the five EQ-5D health state items and deriving utilities from the predicted responses, allowing different countries' health state valuations to be used. Model validation was performed internally via bootstrap and externally using data from two clinical trials. Model performance was assessed using R2, mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error, and calibration of observed vs. predicted values. RESULTS: The EQ-5D-3L models were developed from 1000 health status assessments in 547 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), while the EQ-5D-5L model was developed from 3925 patients with HFrEF. For both versions, models predicting individual EQ-5D items performed as well as those predicting utilities directly. The selected models for the 3L had internally validated R2 of 48.4-50.5% and 33.7-45.6% on external validation. The 5L version had validated R2 of 57.7%. CONCLUSION: Mappings from the KCCQ to the EQ-5D can yield the estimates of societal-based utilities to support cost-effectiveness analyses when EQ-5D data are not available. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of health status benefits, cost-effectiveness, and value of new heart failure therapies is critical for supporting their use. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) measures patients' heart failure-specific health status but does not provide utilities needed for cost-effectiveness analyses. We mapped the KCCQ scores to EQ-5D scores so that estimates of societal-based utilities can be generated to support economic analyses. METHODS: Using data from two US cohort studies, we developed models for predicting EQ-5D utilities (3L and 5L versions) from the KCCQ (23- and 12-item versions). In addition to predicting scores directly, we considered predicting the five EQ-5D health state items and deriving utilities from the predicted responses, allowing different countries' health state valuations to be used. Model validation was performed internally via bootstrap and externally using data from two clinical trials. Model performance was assessed using R2, mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error, and calibration of observed vs. predicted values. RESULTS: The EQ-5D-3L models were developed from 1000 health status assessments in 547 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), while the EQ-5D-5L model was developed from 3925 patients with HFrEF. For both versions, models predicting individual EQ-5D items performed as well as those predicting utilities directly. The selected models for the 3L had internally validated R2 of 48.4-50.5% and 33.7-45.6% on external validation. The 5L version had validated R2 of 57.7%. CONCLUSION: Mappings from the KCCQ to the EQ-5D can yield the estimates of societal-based utilities to support cost-effectiveness analyses when EQ-5D data are not available. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: John Spertus; Eric Peterson; Mark W Conard; Paul A Heidenreich; Harlan M Krumholz; Philip Jones; Peter A McCullough; Ileana Pina; Joseph Tooley; William S Weintraub; John S Rumsfeld Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Yashashwi Pokharel; Yevgeniy Khariton; Yuanyuan Tang; Michael E Nassif; Paul S Chan; Suzanne V Arnold; Philip G Jones; John A Spertus Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Kimberley A Goldsmith; Matthew T Dyer; Martin J Buxton; Linda D Sharples Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Mikhail Kosiborod; Gabriel E Soto; Philip G Jones; Harlan M Krumholz; William S Weintraub; Prakash Deedwania; John A Spertus Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael J Mack; Raj R Makkar; Lars G Svensson; Susheel K Kodali; Vinod H Thourani; E Murat Tuzcu; D Craig Miller; Howard C Herrmann; Darshan Doshi; David J Cohen; Augusto D Pichard; Samir Kapadia; Todd Dewey; Vasilis Babaliaros; Wilson Y Szeto; Mathew R Williams; Dean Kereiakes; Alan Zajarias; Kevin L Greason; Brian K Whisenant; Robert W Hodson; Jeffrey W Moses; Alfredo Trento; David L Brown; William F Fearon; Philippe Pibarot; Rebecca T Hahn; Wael A Jaber; William N Anderson; Maria C Alu; John G Webb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard; Dominik Golicki; Claire Gudex; Maciej Niewada; Luciana Scalone; Paul Swinburn; Jan Busschbach Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Calypse B Agborsangaya; Markus Lahtinen; Tim Cooke; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Justin T Parizo; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Joshua A Salomon; Kiran K Khush; John A Spertus; Paul A Heidenreich; Alexander T Sandhu Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 30.154