A recent study published in the journal Value in Health presents the first attempt to compare two instruments using a population with coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in a multinational, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. The objective of the study was to compare the calculated HUI3 and the SF-6D values in CAD patient population.
Economic evaluation of health programs consists of comparing alternative interventions in terms of costs and consequences (outcomes) in order to better inform decision makers. One such evaluation, cost-utility analysis, incorporates the measured preferences of individuals for health outcomes of the alternative interventions, using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Utilities may be obtained from a variety of sources including the health utilities index (HUI3) or from transforming the SF-36 to a utility measure, the SF-6D. This study reports on utilities measured in a double-blind, multinational phase III clinical trial in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention prior to hospital discharge and six months thereafter. In these patients, the HUI3 and the SF-6D generated different estimates of utilities. The gain in utilities from treatment was lower when using the SF-6D. Since utilities form the basis for calculating QALYs, these differences might result in differences in conclusions about the value of the new treatment.
Source: Eurekalert & othersLast reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 21 Feb 2009
Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.
When humor goes, there goes civilization.
-- Erma Bombeck