Disability weight for each level of the Expanded Disability Status Scale in multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Background:

The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is the most widely employed ordinal disability scale in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, how far apart the individual EDSS levels are along the disability spectrum has not been formally quantified.

Objectives:

The objective of this paper is to generate refined disability weights (DWs) for each of the ordinal EDSS levels.

Methods:

We performed the person trade-off (PTO) procedure to derive DWs of five representative EDSS categories (2, 4, 6, 7 and 9), and DWs of the remaining EDSS categories were assigned by linear interpolation. The modified Delphi process was used to achieve consensus among raters.

Results:

DWs were 0.021 for EDSS 2, 0.199 for EDSS 4, 0.313 for EDSS 6, 0.617 for EDSS 7, and 0.926 for EDSS 9. Panel members achieved a high degree of consensus for each DW, as indicated by low coefficients of variation.

Conclusions:

Our DWs confirmed that EDSS is an ordinal scale with highly variable intervals. The availability of DW for each EDSS level allows direct comparison of each MS outcome state with other health states and provides a foundation for the estimation of the disability-adjusted life-years lost of individual patients.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis Expanded Disability Status Scale disability weight

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kurtzke

. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1452.

Murray

. Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray

Lopez

(eds) Global burden of disease and injury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996, pp.1–98.

World Health Organization. Global Burden of Disease 2004 Update: Disability Weights for Diseases and Conditions, www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD2004_DisabilityWeights.pdf (2008, accessed April 2, 2009).

Salomon

Vos

Hogan

. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: Disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013; 380: 2129–2143.

Berg

Lindgren

Fredrikson

. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7 (Suppl 2): S75–S85.

Kobelt

Berg

Atherly

. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology 2006; 66: 1696–1702.

Kobelt

Berg

Lindgren

. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7 (Suppl 2): S55–S64.

Kobelt

Berg

Lindgren

. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Italy. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7 (Suppl 2): S45–S54.

Kobelt

Berg

Lindgren

. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7 (Suppl 2): S34–S44.

10.

Kobelt

Berg

Lindgren

. Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7 (Suppl 2): S96–S104.

11.

Tengs

Wallace

. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38: 583–637.

12.

Hong

Saver

. Quantifying the value of stroke disability outcomes: WHO global burden of disease project disability weights for each level of the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2009; 40: 3828–3833.

13.

Jones

Hunter

. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376–380.

14.

English

Kernan

. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1976; 13: 83–90.

15.

Kobelt

. Costs and quality of life for patients with multiple sclerosis in Belgium. Eur J Health Econ 2006; 7 (Suppl 2): S24–S33.

16.

Pittock

Mayr

McClelland

. Disability profile of MS did not change over 10 years in a population-based prevalence cohort. Neurology 2004; 62: 601–606.

17.

Hadorn

. The role of public values in setting health care priorities. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 773–781.

18.

Dolan

. Whose preferences count? Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 482–486.

19.

Stouthard

MEA

Essink-Bot

Bonsel

. Disability weights for diseases: A modified protocol and results for a Western European region. Eur J Public Health 2000; 10: 24–30.

20.

Arnesen

Nord

. The value of DALY life: Problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. BMJ 1999; 319: 1423–1425.

21.

Rehm

Frick

. Valuation of health states in the US study to establish disability weights: Lessons from the literature. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2010; 19: 18–33.

22.

Rehm

Frick

. Establishing disability weights from pairwise comparisons for a US burden of disease study. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2013; 22: 144–154.

23.

Murray

Vos

Lozano

. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380: 2197–2223.

24.

Hong

Kim

Cho

. Burden of ischemic stroke in Korea: Analysis of disability-adjusted life years lost. J Clin Neurol 2011; 7: 77–84.

25.

Hong

Saver

Kang

. Years of optimum health lost due to complications after acute ischemic stroke: Disability-adjusted life-years analysis. Stroke 2010; 41: 1758–1765.

26.

Hong

Saver

. Years of disability-adjusted life gained as a result of thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2010; 41: 471–477.