Medical Care

Skip Navigation LinksHome > August 2009 - Volume 47 - Issue 8 > Comparing Cost-Utility Estimates: Does the Choice of EQ-5D o...
Medical Care:
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a39428
Original Article

Comparing Cost-Utility Estimates: Does the Choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D Matter?

Sach, Tracey H. PhD*†‡; Barton, Garry R. PhD†; Jenkinson, Claire BSc‡; Doherty, Michael MD§; Avery, Anthony J. MD‡; Muir, Kenneth R. PhD‡

Collapse Box

Abstract

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 £20,000 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 £10,815 (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 £9999 (compared with option 4), option 2 had an ICER of £36,883 (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 £20,000 per QALY threshold, demonstrating that the choice of measure does matter.

© 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login

Article Tools

Share

Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.