Mapping Kansas City cardiomyopathy, Seattle Angina, and minnesota living with heart failure to the MacNew-7D in patients with heart disease.
Cross walk
MacNew-7D
Mapping
Preference-based instruments
Utility
Journal
Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jun 2024
05 Jun 2024
Historique:
accepted:
01
05
2024
medline:
6
6
2024
pubmed:
6
6
2024
entrez:
5
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) are widely used non-preference-based instruments that measure health-related quality of life (QOL) in people with heart disease. However, currently it is not possible to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for economic evaluation using these instruments as the summary scores produced are not preference-based. The MacNew-7D is a heart disease-specific preference-based instrument. This study provides different mapping algorithms for allocating utility scores to KCCQ, MLHFQ, and SAQ from MacNew-7D to calculate QALYs for economic evaluations. The study included 493 participants with heart failure or angina who completed the KCCQ, MLHFQ, SAQ, and MacNew-7D questionnaires. Regression techniques, namely, Gamma Generalized Linear Model (GLM), Bayesian GLM, Linear regression with stepwise selection and Random Forest were used to develop direct mapping algorithms. Cross-validation was employed due to the absence of an external validation dataset. The study followed the Mapping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards checklist. The best models to predict MacNew-7D utility scores were determined using KCCQ, MLHFQ, and SAQ item and domain scores. Random Forest performed well for item scores for all questionnaires and domain score for KCCQ, while Bayesian GLM and Linear Regression were best for MLHFQ and SAQ domain scores. However, models tended to over-predict severe health states. The three cardiac-specific non-preference-based QOL instruments can be mapped onto MacNew-7D utilities with good predictive accuracy using both direct response mapping techniques. The reported mapping algorithms may facilitate estimation of health utility for economic evaluations that have used these QOL instruments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38839680
doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03676-2
pii: 10.1007/s11136-024-03676-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Dalziel, K., Segal, L., & Mortimer, D. (2008). Review of Australian health economic evaluation – 245 interventions: What can we say about cost effectiveness? Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 6(1), 9.
pubmed: 18489788
pmcid: 2413209
doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-6-9
Collado-Mateo, D., Chen, G., Garcia-Gordillo, M. A., Iezzi, A., Adsuar, J. C., Olivares, P. R., & Gusi, N. (2017). Fibromyalgia and quality of life: Mapping the revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire to the preference-based instruments. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15(1), 114.
pubmed: 28558703
pmcid: 5450359
doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0690-0
Prieto, L., & Sacristán, J. A. (2003). Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 80.
pubmed: 14687421
pmcid: 317370
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-80
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of life Research: An International Journal of Quality of life Aspects of Treatment care and Rehabilitation, 24(8), 2045–2053.
pubmed: 25636660
doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6
Wells, G. A., Russell, A. S., Haraoui, B., Bissonnette, R., & Ware, C. F. (2011). Validity of quality of Life Measurement Tools — from generic to Disease-specific. The Journal of Rheumatology, 88, 2.
pubmed: 22045972
Ware, J. E. Jr., Gandek, B., Guyer, R., & Deng, N. (2016). Standardizing disease-specific quality of life measures across multiple chronic conditions: Development and initial evaluation of the QOL Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 84.
pubmed: 27255462
pmcid: 4890258
doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0483-x
Kularatna, S., Byrnes, J., Chan, Y. K., Carrington, M. J., Stewart, S., & Scuffham, P. A. (2017). Comparison of contemporaneous responses for EQ-5D-3L and Minnesota living with Heart Failure; a case for disease specific multiattribute utility instrument in cardiovascular conditions. International Journal of Cardiology, 227, 172–176.
pubmed: 27865116
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.030
Cichosz, S. L., Ehlers, L. H., & Hejlesen, O. (2016). Health effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare for heart failure: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 17(1), 1–6.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1722-5
Kularatna, S., Chen, G., Senanayake, S., Hettiarachchi, R., Parsonage, W., Norman, R., et al. (2022). Australian Health Utility Value set for MacNew-7D heart disease-specific measure. Heart Lung and Circulation, 31, S71.
doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2022.06.063
Kularatna, S., Rowen, D., Mukuria, C., McPhail, S., Chen, G., Mulhern, B., et al. (2022). Development of a preference-based heart disease-specific health state classification system using MacNew heart disease-related quality of life instrument. Quality of Life Research, 31(1), 257–268.
pubmed: 34037917
doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02884-4
World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) - Key Facts: WHO (2021). [ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds ).
Chen, G., Garcia-Gordillo, M. A., Collado-Mateo, D., del Pozo-Cruz, B., Adsuar, J. C., Cordero-Ferrera, J. M., et al. (2018). Converting Parkinson-Specific scores into Health State Utilities to assess cost-utility analysis. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 11(6), 665–675.
pubmed: 29876865
doi: 10.1007/s40271-018-0317-5
Chen, G., McKie, J., Khan, M. A., & Richardson, J. R. (2015). Deriving health utilities from the macnew heart disease quality of life questionnaire. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 14(5), 405–415.
pubmed: 24829296
doi: 10.1177/1474515114536096
Kularatna, S., Senanayake, S., Chen, G., & Parsonage, W. (2020). Mapping the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) to EQ-5D-5L in patients with heart failure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 1–12.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01368-2
Green, C. P., Dennis, C. B. P., Bresnahan, R., & Spertus, J. A. (2000). Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: A new health status measure for heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 35(5), 1245–1255.
pubmed: 10758967
doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00531-3
Spertus, J. A., Jones, P. G., Sandhu, A. T., & Arnold, S. V. (2020). Interpreting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in clinical trials and clinical care: JACC state-of-the-art review. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 76(20), 2379–2390.
pubmed: 33183512
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.542
Bilbao, A., Escobar, A., García-Perez, L., Navarro, G., & Quirós, R. (2016). The Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: Comparison of different factor structures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14, 23.
pubmed: 26887590
pmcid: 4756518
doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0425-7
Thomas, M., Jones, P. G., Arnold, S. V., & Spertus, J. A. (2021). Interpretation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire as an Outcome measure in clinical trials and clinical care: A review. JAMA Cardiology, 6(5), 593–599.
pubmed: 33566062
pmcid: 8651216
doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.7478
Kularatna, S., Senanayake, S., Chen, G., & Parsonage, W. (2020). Mapping the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) to EQ-5D-5L in patients with heart failure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 115.
pubmed: 32349782
pmcid: 7189529
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01368-2
Statistics CiRaMfO Root mean square error (RMSE) 2019 [ https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/root-mean-square-error-rmse_en#:~:text=The%20Root%20mean%20square%20erro,of%20variance%20and%20squared%20Bias .
Neilson, A. R., Jones, G. T., Macfarlane, G. J., Pathan, E. M., McNamee, P., & Generating (2022). EQ-5D-5L health utility scores from BASDAI and BASFI: A mapping study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis using longitudinal UK registry data. The European Journal of Health Economics, 23(8), 1357–1369.
pubmed: 35113270
pmcid: 9550731
doi: 10.1007/s10198-022-01429-x
Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2010). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11, 215–225.
pubmed: 19585162
doi: 10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z
Meregaglia, M., Whittal, A., Nicod, E., & Drummond, M. (2020). Mapping’ Health State Utility values from non-preference-based measures: A systematic literature. Review in Rare Diseases PharmacoEconomics, 38(6), 557–574.
pubmed: 32152892
Brazier, J., Czoski-Murray, C., Roberts, J., Brown, M., Symonds, T., & Kelleher, C. (2008). Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: The King’s Health Questionnaire. Medical Decision Making, 28(1), 113–126.
pubmed: 17641139
doi: 10.1177/0272989X07301820
Yang, F., Devlin, N., & Luo, N. (2019). Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: In the case of dialysis treatments. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20, 99–105.
pubmed: 29948432
doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0987-x
Youngerman, B. E., Mahajan, U. V., Dyster, T. G., Srinivasan, S., Halpern, C. H., McKhann, G. M., & Sheth, S. A. (2021). Cost-effectiveness analysis of responsive neurostimulation for drug‐resistant focal onset epilepsy. Epilepsia, 62(11), 2804–2813.
pubmed: 34458986
doi: 10.1111/epi.17049
Trenaman, L., Stacey, D., Bryan, S., Taljaard, M., Hawker, G., Dervin, G., et al. (2017). Decision aids for patients considering total joint replacement: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 25(10), 1615–1622.
pubmed: 28624294
doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.05.022
King, R. D., Orhobor, O. I., & Taylor, C. C. (2021). Cross-validation is safe to use. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(4), 276.
doi: 10.1038/s42256-021-00332-z
Schaffer, C. (1993). Selecting a classification method by cross-validation. Machine Learning, 13, 135–143.
doi: 10.1007/BF00993106
Valsamis, E. M., Beard, D., Carr, A., Collins, G. S., Brealey, S., Rangan, A., et al. (2023). Mapping the Oxford shoulder score onto the EQ-5D utility index. Quality of life Research, 32(2), 507–518.
pubmed: 36169788
doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03262-4
Doble, B., & Lorgelly, P. (2016). Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-3L: Assessing the external validity of existing mapping algorithms. Quality of Life Research, 25, 891–911.
pubmed: 26391884
doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1116-2
Ali, F. M., Kay, R., Finlay, A. Y., Piguet, V., Kupfer, J., Dalgard, F., & Salek, M. S. (2017). Mapping of the DLQI scores to EQ-5D utility values using ordinal logistic regression. Quality of Life Research, 26, 3025–3034.
pubmed: 28601958
pmcid: 5655589
doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1607-4
Klapproth, C. P., van Bebber, J., Berlin, C. U., Gibbons, C. J., Valderas, J. M., Alain, L. (2020). Predicting EQ-5D Index Scores from the PROMIS-29 Pro le for the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.
Austin, D. E., Lee, D. S., Wang, C. X., Ma, S., Wang, X., Porter, J., & Wang, B. (2022). Comparison of machine learning and the regression-based EHMRG model for predicting early mortality in acute heart failure. International Journal of Cardiology, 365, 78–84.
pubmed: 35868354
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.07.035
Mortazavi, B. J., Downing, N. S., Bucholz, E. M., Dharmarajan, K., Manhapra, A., Li, S-X., et al. (2016). Analysis of machine learning techniques for heart failure readmissions. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 9(6), 629–640.
pubmed: 28263938
Zou, Q., Qu, K., Luo, Y., Yin, D., Ju, Y., & Tang, H. (2018). Predicting Diabetes mellitus with machine learning techniques. Frontiers in Genetics, 9, 515.
pubmed: 30459809
pmcid: 6232260
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00515
Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32.
doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
Zhang, L., Tan, J., Han, D., & Zhu, H. (2017). From machine learning to deep learning: Progress in machine intelligence for rational drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today, 22(11), 1680–1685.
pubmed: 28881183
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2017.08.010
Akram, M., Cerin, E., Lamb, K. E., & White, S. R. (2023). Modelling count, bounded and skewed continuous outcomes in physical activity research: Beyond linear regression models. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 20(1), 1–11.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01460-y
Chen, G., Tan, J. T., Ng, K., Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J. (2014). Mapping of Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) scores to Assessment of Quality of Life 8D (AQoL-8D) utilities in patients with idiopathic overactive bladder. Health and Quality of life Outcomes, 12(1), 1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0133-0
Chalet, F-X., Bujaroska, T., Germeni, E., Ghandri, N., Maddalena, E. T., Modi, K., et al. (2023). Mapping the Insomnia Severity Index instrument to EQ-5D health state utilities: A United Kingdom perspective. PharmacoEconomics-Open, 7(1), 149–161.
pubmed: 36703022
pmcid: 9928998
doi: 10.1007/s41669-023-00388-0
Chen, G., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., Ratcliffe, J., & Richardson, J. (2016). Mapping between 6 multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 160–175.
pubmed: 25840901
doi: 10.1177/0272989X15578127
Zhao, Y., Staudenmayer, J., Coull, B. A., & Wand, M. P. (2006). General design bayesian generalized linear mixed models. Statistical Science. 35–51.
Wailoo, A., Hernandez Alava, M., & Escobar Martinez, A. (2014). Modelling the relationship between the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and EQ-5D. Health and Quality of life Outcomes, 12, 1–6.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-37
Hays, R. D., Revicki, D. A., Feeny, D., Fayers, P., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2016). 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, 34, 1015–1022.
pubmed: 27116613
pmcid: 5026900
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0408-x
Wailoo, A. J., Hernandez-Alava, M., Manca, A., Mejia, A., Ray, J., Crawford, B., et al. (2017). Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non–preference-based outcome measures: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value in Health, 20(1), 18–27.
pubmed: 28212961
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006
Chan, K. K., Willan, A. R., Gupta, M., & Pullenayegum, E. (2014). Underestimation of uncertainties in health utilities derived from mapping algorithms involving health-related quality-of-life measures: Statistical explanations and potential remedies. Medical Decision Making, 34(7), 863–872.
pubmed: 24407513
doi: 10.1177/0272989X13517750
Hu, L., Chun, Y., & Griffith, D. A. (2022). Incorporating spatial autocorrelation into house sale price prediction using random forest model. Transactions in GIS, 26(5), 2123–2144.
doi: 10.1111/tgis.12931
Li, C., Dou, L., Fu, Q., & Li, S. (2023). Mapping the Seattle Angina Questionnaire to EQ-5D-5L in patients with coronary heart disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 21(1), 64.
pubmed: 37400827
pmcid: 10318834
doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02151-9
Wijeysundera, H. C., Tomlinson, G., Norris, C. M., Ghali, W. A., Ko, D. T., & Krahn, M. D. (2011). Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in coronary artery disease: A mapping algorithm using a bayesian framework. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 481–493.
pubmed: 21127316
doi: 10.1177/0272989X10386800
Thomas, M., Jones, P. G., Cohen, D. J., Suzanne, A. V., Magnuson, E. A., Wang, K., et al. (2021). Predicting the EQ-5D utilities from the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with heart failure. European Heart Journal-Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes, 7(4), 388–396.
pubmed: 33724402
pmcid: 8294685
doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab014
Hunger, M., Eriksson, J., Regnier, S. A., Mori, K., Spertus, J. A., & Cristino, J. (2020). Mapping the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) onto EQ-5D-3L in heart failure patients: Results for the Japanese and UK value sets. MDM Policy & Practice, 5(2), 2381468320971606.
doi: 10.1177/2381468320971606