Assessing Differences in Utility Scores: A Comparison of Four Widely Used Preference-Based Instruments

• Published in: Value in health Vol. 10; no. 4; pp. 256 - 265
• Main Authors: Wee, Hwee-Lin, Machin, David, Loke, Wai-Chiong, Li, Shu-Chuen, Cheung, Yin-Bun, Luo, Nan, Feeny, David, Fong, Kok-Yong, Thumboo, Julian
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Malden, USA Elsevier Inc 01.07.2007; Blackwell Publishing Inc
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Asia; comparative study; cost benefit; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Decision Trees; Demography; Female; Health Status; Humans; Internal Medicine; Interviews as Topic; Linear Models; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; quality-adjusted life-year; Surveys and Questionnaires; Asia; quality-adjusted life-year; comparative study; Asia; decision trees; cost benefit
• ISSN: 1098-3015; 1524-4733
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00174.x

To characterize the differences in utility scores (dUTY) among four commonly used preference-based Health-Related Quality of Life instruments, to evaluate the potential impact of these differences on cost-utility analyses (CUA), and to determine if sociodemographic/clinical factors influenced the magnitude of these differences. Consenting adult Chinese, Malay and Indian subjects in Singapore were interviewed using Singapore English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil versions of the EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), and SF-6D. Agreement between instruments was assessed using Bland–Altman (BA) plots. Changes in incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) from dUTY were investigated using eight hypothetical decision trees. The influence of sociodemographic/clinical factors on dUTY between instrument pairs was studied using multiple linear regression (MLR) models for English-speaking subjects (circumventing structural zero issues). In 667 subjects (median age 48 years, 59% female), median utility scores ranged from 0.80 (95% confidenceinterval [CI] 0.80, 0.85) for the EQ-5D to 0.89 (95% CI 0.88, 0.89) for the SF-6D. BA plots: Mean differences (95% CI) exceeded the clinically important difference (CID) of 0.04 for four of six pairwise comparisons, with the exception of the HUI2/EQ-5D (0.03, CI: 0.02, 0.04) and SF-6D/HUI2 (0.02, CI: 0.006, 0.02). Decision trees: The ICER ranged from $94,661/QALY (quality-adjusted life-year; 6.3% difference from base case) to $100,693/QALY (0.3% difference from base case). MLR: Chronic medical conditions, marital status, and Family Functioning Measures scores significantly ( P-value < 0.05) influenced dUTY for several instrument pairs. Although CIDs in utility measurements were present for different preference-based instruments, the impact of these differences on CUA appeared relatively minor. Chronic medical conditions, marital status, and family functioning influenced the magnitude of these differences.