Mapping the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) to EQ-5D Utility Scores

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a mapping algorithm for the estimation of EQ-5D-based utility scores from observed 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) scores, a disease-specific, patient-reported outcome measure used in several retinal disorders to evaluate vision-specific functioning.

Methods: The dataset comprised 951 paired EQ-5D/NEI VFQ-25 observations from 344 patients in RESTORE, a 12-month, randomized, double-blind trial in individuals with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema. EQ-5D index scores (utilities) were calculated based on the UK tariff. We evaluated 11 models using predictor sets based on the NEI VFQ-25 subscales to estimate utility as a function of NEI VFQ-25 score, based on four modeling techniques. Model performance was assessed by 10-fold cross-validation comparing root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and correlation with EQ-5D score (Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients).

Results: Mapping results were similar across all techniques and predictor sets. The reverse two-part generalized estimating equation model used fewest predictors and had the best predictive performance (RMSE 0.200, MAE 0.140). Predicted and original EQ-5D values were not strongly correlated (squared Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.34).

Conclusions: Although mapping disease-specific instruments to EQ-5D utilities is a preferred method by some reimbursement bodies, finding an appropriate mapping equation is not straightforward. In this study, mapping NEI VFQ-25 scores to EQ-5D utilities provided low predictive power, independent of the modeling methodology applied, suggesting an inability of the EQ-5D to discriminate vision-related activities, and highlighting that mapping exercises may lead to inaccurate utility values that do not represent patients’ preferences.

• DME
• EQ-5D
• mapping
• NEI VFQ-25
• visual functioning

Acknowledgements

The results of the study were presented as a poster at the June 2012 meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

The authors take full responsibility for the content of this paper but thank Dr Nick Leach and Dr Rowena Hughes (Oxford PharmaGenesis™ Ltd) for editorial support in developing the manuscript and collating the comments of the authors.