• A Szende, N K Leidy, E Ståhl, and K Svensson.
• Covance Market Access Services Inc., Springfield House, Hyde Street, Leeds, LS2 9LH, UK. agota.szende@covance.com
• Qual Life Res. 2009 Mar 1;18(2):267-72.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to understand systematic differences in utility values derived from the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in two respiratory populations with heterogeneous disease severity.MethodsThis study involved secondary analysis of data from two cross-sectional surveys of patients with asthma (N = 228; Hungary) and COPD (N = 176; Sweden). Disease severity was defined according to GINA and GOLD guidelines for asthma and COPD, respectively. EQ-5D and SF-6D scores and their distributional characteristics were compared across the two samples by disease severity level.ResultsWithin each patient population, mean EQ-5D and SF-6D scores were similar for the overall group and for those with moderate disease. Mean scores varied for patients with mild and severe disease. EQ-5D versus SF-6D scores in the asthma group by severity levels were 0.89 versus 0.80, 0.70 versus 0.73, 0.63 versus 0.64, and 0.51 versus 0.63, respectively. EQ-5D versus SF-6D scores in the COPD group by severity levels were 0.85 versus 0.80, 0.73 versus 0.73, 0.74 versus 0.73, and 0.53 versus 0.62, respectively.ConclusionsResults suggest the EQ-5D and SF-6D do not yield consistent utility values in patients with asthma and COPD due to differences in underlying valuation techniques and the EQ-5D's limited response options relative to mild disease.

15 keywords...

hide…