Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Box 23 Vinderen, Oslo N-0319, Norway.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Oct;69(10):1762-7. doi: 10.1136/ard.2009.124099. Epub 2010 May 6.
The aim of this study was to compare three health utility instruments (15D, EQ-5D, SF-6D) and a rating scale for health (EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)) and to investigate their relationship to clinical parameters in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Data were collected from 1041 patients with RA. Agreement between the instruments was assessed with Bland-Altman plots. Linear regression models were fitted for the different instruments and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, age, gender, patient global, disease duration and educational level. Differences in utility scores across levels of global health and disability, were investigated as well as correlations with disease-specific health status measures.
The score range in the 1041 patients with RA was 0.41-1.0 for 15D, -0.48 to 1.0 for EQ-5D, 0.0-1.0 for EQ-VAS and 0.30-1.0 for SF-6D, with a bimodal distribution for EQ-5D. Bland-Altman plots indicated poor agreement between EQ-5D and SF-6D/15D and moderate agreement between SF-6D and 15D. Utility scores were correlated with disease-specific measures, pain and fatigue (r>0.60). Mean utilities ranged from 0.30 (EQ-5D) to 0.69 (15D) in patients rating their own health as poor. When correcting for a non-linear relationship between HAQ and EQ-5D/SF-6D in linear regression models, the estimated utilities had non-overlying CI for HAQ values >1.4.
Diverging scores were observed across utility instruments, especially in patients with high HAQ scores. The choice of utility instrument may have an impact on the results of cost-utility analyses, with large hypothetical differences in price per quality-adjusted life year.
本研究旨在比较三种健康效用工具(15D、EQ-5D、SF-6D)和一种健康评级量表(EQ-视觉模拟量表(VAS)),并探讨它们与类风湿关节炎(RA)患者临床参数的关系。
从 1041 例 RA 患者中收集数据。通过 Bland-Altman 图评估工具之间的一致性。为不同的工具和健康评估问卷(HAQ)评分、年龄、性别、患者整体、疾病持续时间和教育水平拟合线性回归模型。还研究了效用评分在整体健康和残疾水平上的差异,以及与疾病特异性健康状况衡量标准的相关性。
在 1041 例 RA 患者中,15D 的评分范围为 0.41-1.0,EQ-5D 为-0.48 至 1.0,EQ-VAS 为 0.0 至 1.0,SF-6D 为 0.30 至 1.0,EQ-5D 呈双峰分布。Bland-Altman 图表明 EQ-5D 与 SF-6D/15D 之间的一致性较差,而 SF-6D 与 15D 之间的一致性中等。效用评分与疾病特异性衡量标准、疼痛和疲劳相关(r>0.60)。在将 HAQ 和 EQ-5D/SF-6D 之间的非线性关系纳入线性回归模型进行校正后,在 HAQ 值>1.4 的情况下,估计效用的置信区间没有重叠。
在效用工具中观察到离散的评分,尤其是在 HAQ 评分较高的患者中。效用工具的选择可能会对成本效用分析的结果产生影响,导致每质量调整生命年的价格存在较大的假设差异。