Utilities Estimated from PROMIS Scales for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Stroke

Abstract

Background

The EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) are preference-based measures used in cost-effectiveness studies. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference scoring system (PROPr) is a new preference-based measure. In addition, algorithms were previously developed to map PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH) items to HUI-3 using linear equating (HUI_LE) and 3-level EQ-5D using linear (EQ5D_LE). We sought to evaluate and compare estimated utilities based on PROPr and PROMIS-GH in adult stroke survivors.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with 1 of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage seen in an outpatient clinic between 2015 and 2019. Patients completed PROMIS scales and other measures. We computed a modified version of PROPr (mPROPr) and compared the distributional characteristics and correlations with stroke outcomes for mPROPr, HUI_LE, and EQ5D_LE.

Results

T toal of 4,159 stroke survivors (average age 62.7 ± 14.7 y, 48.4% female, 77.6% ischemic stroke) were included. Mean utility estimates for mPROPr, EQ5D_LE, and HUI_LE were 0.333 ± 0.244, 0.739 ± 0.201, and 0.544 ± 0.301, respectively. Correlations between the modified Rankin Scale and each of mPROPr and HUI_LE were both −0.48 and −0.43 for EQ5D_LE. Regression analyses indicated that mPROPr scores may be too low for stroke patients in good health and that EQ5D_LE scores may be too high for stroke patients in poor health.

Conclusions

All 3 PROMIS-based utilities were associated with measures of stroke disability and severity, but the distributions of utilities were very different. Our study highlights the problem cost-effectiveness researchers face of valuing health states with certainty. For researchers using utilities estimated from PROMIS scales, our study indicates that mapping PROMIS-GH item scores to HUI-3 via linear equating may be most appropriate in stroke patients.

Highlights

A new preference-based measure has been developed from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), known as the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) scoring system, and published equations mapping PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH) items to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) and EQ-5D-3L are available for use in cost-effectiveness studies.

Our study provides distributional characteristics and comparisons of utilities estimated using a modified version of PROPr and equations mapping PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L and HUI-3 in a sample of stroke survivors.

The results of our study show large differences in the distributions of utilities estimated using the different health state measures, and these differences highlight the ongoing difficulty researchers face in valuing health states with certainty.

Keywords

stroke cost-effectiveness utility PROMIS PROPr

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sevick

Ghali

Hill

, et al. Systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of rapid endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2017;48:2519–26.

Kunz

Hunink

MGM

Sommer

, et al. Cost-effectiveness of endovascular stroke therapy: a patient subgroup analysis from a US healthcare perspective. Stroke. 2016;47(11):2797–804.

Joo

Wang

George

. A literature review of cost-effectiveness of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for treating acute ischaemic stroke. Stroke Vasc Neur. 2017;2(2):73–83.

Amiri

Goudarzi

Amiresmaili

Iranmanesh

. Cost-effectiveness analysis of tissue plasminogen activator in acute ischemic stroke in Iran. J Med Econ. 2018;21(3):282–7.

Leppert

Poisson

Carroll

, et al. Cost-effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy for secondary stroke prevention. Stroke. 2018;49(6):1443–50.

Post

Stiggelbout

Wakker

. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke. 2001;32(6):1425–9.

Torrance

. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(6):593–603.

Dolan

. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.

Feeny

Furlong

Boyle

Torrance

. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7(6):490–502.

10.

Golicki

Niewada

Buczek

, et al. Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):845–50.

11.

Haacke

Althaus

Spottke

Siebert

Back

Dodel

. Long-term outcome after stroke: evaluating health-related quality of life using utility measurements. Stroke. 2006;37(1):193–8.

12.

Kanai

Izawa

Kubo

Nozoe

Mase

Shimada

. Association of health utility score with physical activity outcomes in stroke survivors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):1–9.

13.

Horsman

Furlong

Feeny

Torrance

. The health utilities index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:1–13.

14.

Dorman

Waddell

Slattery

Dennis

Sandercock

. Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke. Stroke. 1997;28(1):1876–82.

15.

Grootendorst

Feeny

Furlong

. Health utilities index mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care. 2000;38(3):290–9.

16.

Dewitt

Feeny

Fischhoff

, et al. Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system: the PROMIS®-preference (PROPr) scoring system. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(6):683–98.

17.

Cella

Yount

Rothrock

, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5):3–11.

18.

Hanmer

Dewitt

. PROMIS-preference (PROPr) score construction—a technical report. 2017. Available from: janelhanmer.pitt.edu/PROPr.html

19.

Hanmer

Cella

Feeny

, et al. Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(12):3377–85.

20.

Hanmer

Feeny

Fischhoff

, et al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:122.

21.

Hanmer

Cella

Feeny

, et al. Evaluation of options for presenting health states from PROMIS item banks for valuation exercises. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(7):1835–43.

22.

Hanmer

Dewitt

, et al. Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-preference scoring system. PLoS One. 2018;13:1–13.

23.

Hanmer

. Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system by its association with social determinants of health. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(3):881–9.

24.

Dakin

. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:151.

25.

Brazier

Yang

Tsuchiya

Rowen

. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Heal Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.

26.

Klapproth

van Bebber

Sidey-Gibbons

, et al. Predicting EQ-5D-5L crosswalk from the PROMIS-29 profile for the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):389.

27.

Hays

Revicki

Feeny

Fayers

Spritzer

Cella

. Using linear equating to map PROMIS® global health items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 profile measure to the health utilities index mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(1):1015–22.

28.

Thompson

Lapin

Katzan

. Mapping PROMIS global health items to EuroQol (EQ-5D) utility scores using linear and equipercentile equating. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(11):1167–76.

29.

Hays

Bjorner

Revicki

Spritzer

Cella

. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):873–80.

30.

Katzan

Lapin

. PROMIS GH (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system global health) scale in stroke: a validation study. Stroke. 2018;49(1):147–54.

31.

van Swieten

Koudstaal

Visser

Schouten

van Gijn

. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19(5):604–7.

32.

Brott

Adams

Jr Olinger

, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20(7):864–70.

33.

Katzan

Speck

Dopler

, et al. The knowledge program: an innovative, comprehensive electronic data capture system and warehouse. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:683–92.

34.

Kroenke

Spitzer

Williams

JBW

. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

35.

Williams

Brizendine

Plue

, et al. Performance of the PHQ-9 as a screening tool for depression after stroke. Stroke. 2005;36(3):635–8.

36.

de Man-Van Ginkel

Gooskens

Schepers

VPM

Schuurmans

Lindeman

Hafsteinsdóttir

. Screening for poststroke depression using the patient health questionnaire. Nurs Res. 2012;61(5):333–41.

37.

Turner

Hambridge

White

, et al. Depression screening in stroke: a comparison of alternative measures with the structured diagnostic interview for the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition (major depressive episode) as criterion standard. Stroke. 2012;43(4):1000–5.

38.

Meader

Moe-Byrne

Llewellyn

Mitchell

. Screening for poststroke major depression: a meta-analysis of diagnostic validity studies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85(2):198–206.

39.

Choi

Schalet

Cook

Cella

. Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS Depression. Psychol Assess. 2014;26(2):513–27.

40.

Cella

Lai

J-S

Nowinski

, et al. Neuro-QOL: brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology. 2012;78(23):1860–7.

41.

Cella

Choi

Condon

, et al. PROMIS® adult health profiles: efficient short-form measures of seven health domains. Value Heal. 2019;22(5):537–44.

42.

R Core Team. R: A language environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2021. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/

43.

Hahn

DeWalt

Bode

, et al. New English and Spanish social health measures will facilitate evaluating health determinants. Health Psychol. 2014;33(5):490–9.

44.

DeVellis

. PROMIS 1 social supplement. 2016. DOI: 10.7910/DVN/RKNXL9

45.

Dewitt

Jalal

Hanmer

. Computing PROPr utility scores for PROMIS® profile instruments. Value Health. 2020;23(3):370–8.

46.

Revicki

Kawata

Harnam

Chen

Hays

Cella

. Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(6):783–91.

47.

Chaisinanunkul

Adeoye

Lewis

, et al. Adopting a patient-centered approach to primary outcome analysis of acute stroke trials using a utility-weighted modified Rankin scale. Stroke. 2015;46(8):2238–43.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB