Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 May 19:6:253-68.
doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S63187. eCollection 2014.

Conversion of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire into EQ-5D utilities for ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and catalog of the literature

Harindra C Wijeysundera  1 , Sara Farshchi-Zarabi  2 , William Witteman  3 , Maria C Bennell  2
Affiliations

Conversion of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire into EQ-5D utilities for ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and catalog of the literature

Harindra C Wijeysundera et al. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. .

Abstract

Background: There is a paucity of preference-based (utility) measures of health-related quality of life for patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD); in contrast, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) is a widely used descriptive measure. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify IHD studies reporting SAQ scores in order to apply a mapping algorithm to convert these to preference-based scores for secondary use in economic evaluations.

Methods: Relevant articles were identified in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), HealthStar (Ovid), and PubMed from inception to 2012. We previously developed and validated a mapping algorithm that converts SAQ descriptive scores to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility scores. In the current study, this mapping algorithm was used to estimate EQ-5D utility scores from SAQ scores.

Results: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were categorized into three groups, ie, general IHD (n=13), acute coronary syndromes (n=4), and revascularization (n=19). EQ-5D scores for patients with general IHD were in the range of 0.605-0.843 at baseline, and increased to 0.649-0.877 post follow-up. EQ-5D scores for studies of patients with recent acute coronary syndromes increased from 0.706-0.796 at baseline to 0.795-0.942 post follow-up. The revascularization studies had EQ-5D scores in the range of 0.616-0.790 at baseline, and increased to 0.653-0.928 after treatment; studies that focused only on coronary artery bypass grafting increased from 0.643-0.788 at baseline to 0.653-0.928 after grafting, and studies that focused only on percutaneous coronary intervention increased in score from 0.616-0.790 at baseline to 0.668-0.897 after treatment.

Conclusion: In this review, we provide a catalog of estimated health utility scores across a wide range of disease severity and following various interventions in patients with IHD. Our catalog of EQ-5D scores can be used in IHD-related economic evaluations.

Keywords: European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions; Seattle Angina Questionnaire; health-related quality of life; ischemic heart disease; mapping algorithm; utilities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Process of study selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004. - PubMed
    1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health . Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
    1. Longworth L, Buxton M, Sculpher M, Smith D. Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(4):347–353. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization . Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.

LinkOut - more resources