Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter?
Med Care
; 47(8): 889-94, 2009 Aug.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-19584759
BACKGROUND: A number of different measures can be used within cost-utility analyses, we compared results according to both the EQ-5D and SF-6D. METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted to compare 4 options for people with knee pain. Over the 2 year trial period, the change in cost to health-service was estimated, and both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were used to estimate the change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Using a complete case analysis, the cost-utility (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) of each option, according to both the EQ-5D and SF-6D, was calculated and assessed in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold of pound20,000 per QALY. RESULTS: Of the 389 participants, 247 had complete cost, EQ-5D and SF-6D data. According to the EQ-5D, option 1 had an estimated ICER of pound10,815 (compared with option 4), option 2 was dominated by option 1, and option 3 was subject to extended dominance. Conversely, according to the SF-6D, option 3 had an ICER of pound9999 (compared with option 4), option 2 had an ICER of pound36,883 (compared with option 3), and option 1 was subject to extended dominance. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D and SF-6D estimated that different options (1 and 3, respectively) were cost-effective at the pound20,000 per QALY threshold, demonstrating that the choice of measure does matter.
Texto completo:
1
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Dor
/
Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida
/
Manejo da Dor
/
Articulação do Joelho
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Etiology_studies
/
Health_economic_evaluation
/
Risk_factors_studies
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2009
Tipo de documento:
Article