Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic analysis is often based upon incremental cost per increase in survival (cost-effectiveness). Using this definition supportive care measures, which increase quality but not quantity of life, generate a zero denominator and cannot be directly compared with other components of health care cost. Cost-utility analysis, which measures incremental cost per increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), where QALY=utility score x time at risk, addresses this problem, since successful supportive intervention increases the utility score and thus provides a finite denominator in QALY even when absolute survival is unchanged. However, utility scores for various supportive care modalities have not been well defined. As a pilot study to generate a first approximation of a utility score for nausea/vomiting, we used a rating scale technique and administered two visual analogue scale questions to 30 patients completing a cycle of chemotherapy. Patients rated their global quality of life during their previous cycle of chemotherapy with hypothetical absence or presence of nausea/vomiting as the only variable. The study population included 8 male and 22 female patients, with a median age of 56 years. The most common malignancies were breast cancer (8 patients), lung cancer (7 patients), and hematologic malignancies (7 patients). On a 100 mm visual analogue scale, the mean score for overall quality of life during chemotherapy was 79 mm without nausea/vomiting and 27 mm with nausea/vomiting (P<0.001, pairedt-test). The implied marked increase in utility with relief of nausea/vomiting suggests a significant impact on cost-utility analysis. Similar methodology could be used to estimate utility scores in other areas of supportive care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB, Sowerbutts T, Frewin C, Fox RM, Tattersall MH (1983) On the receiving end — patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 19:203–208

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J (1992) Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 45:505–512

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lindley CM, Hirsch JD, O'Neill CV, Transau MC, Gilbert CB, Osterhaus JT (1992) Quality of life consequences of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Qual Life Res 1:331–340

    Google Scholar 

  4. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF (1984) Describing health states — methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 22:543–552

    Google Scholar 

  5. Loomes G, McKenzie L (1989) The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med 28:299–308

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nord E (1992) Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 34:559–569

    Google Scholar 

  7. O'Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, Weeks JC (1995) Comparison of time-tradeoff utilities and rating scale values in cancer patients and their relatives: evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Med Decis Making 15:132–137

    Google Scholar 

  8. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC (1984) Preferences for health outcomes — comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 4:315–329

    Google Scholar 

  9. Richardson J (1994) Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med 39:7–21

    Google Scholar 

  10. Robinson R (1993) Cost-utility analysis. BMJ 307:859–862

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sutherland HJ, Dunn V, Boyd NF (1983) Measurement of values for states of health with linear analog scales. Med Decis Making 3:477–487

    Google Scholar 

  12. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal — a review. J Health Econ 5:130

    Google Scholar 

  13. Van der Donk J, Levendag PC, Kuijpers AJ, Roest FHJ, Habbema JDF, Meeuwis CA, Schmitz PIM (1995) Patient participation in clinical decision making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities. J Clin Oncol 13:2369–2378

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weeks J (1995) Measurement of utilities and quality-adjusted survival. Oncology 9 [Suppl 11]:67–70

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weeks JC (1995) Special issues that arise in applying techniques of economic analysis to evaluation of cancer therapies. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 19:11–12

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zbrozek AS, Cantor SB, Cardenas MP, Hill DP Jr (1994) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Am J Hosp Pharm 51:1555–1563

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Presented in part at the 31st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Los Angeles, California, 1995

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grunberg, S.M., Boutin, N., Ireland, A. et al. Impact of nausea/vomiting on quality of life as a visual analogue scale-derived utility score. Support Care Cancer 4, 435–439 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880641

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880641

Key words

Navigation