Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?

Ângela Jornada Ben*, Sylvia Pellekooren, Judith E. Bosmans, Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo, Esther T. Maas, Mohamed El Alili, Maurits W. van Tulder, Frank J.P.M. Huygen, Teddy Oosterhuis, Adri T. Apeldoorn, Miranda L. van Hooff, Johanna M. van Dongen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

31 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models. Methods: Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations. Results: The Non-p performed the best (R2 = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = −0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R2 = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = −0.15; 95% LA = −0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R2 = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = −0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR). Conclusions: Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients’ 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and—depending on the approach—may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)873-882
Number of pages10
JournalValue in Health
Volume26
Issue number6
Early online date10 Feb 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Ostelo reported receiving grants from ZonMw and WCF outside the submitted work. Dr Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. Dr Huygen has a patent P121304EP00 pending and a patent P121304NL00 pending. Dr Oosterhuis reported receiving grants from ZonMW, Ministry of Social Affairs and employment outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Ostelo reported receiving grants from ZonMw and WCF outside the submitted work. Dr Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. Dr Huygen has a patent P121304EP00 pending and a patent P121304NL00 pending. Dr Oosterhuis reported receiving grants from ZonMW, Ministry of Social Affairs and employment outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.Funding/Support: This study was internally funded by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam through the van Meenen middelen.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this