Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 815–824 | Cite as

The concurrent validity and responsiveness of the health utilities index (HUI 3) among patients with advanced HIV/AIDS

  • Bohdan Nosyk
  • Huiying Sun
  • Nick Bansback
  • Daphne P. Guh
  • Xin Li
  • Paul Barnett
  • Ahmed Bayoumi
  • Susan Griffin
  • Vilija Joyce
  • Mark Holodniy
  • Doug K. Owens
  • Aslam H. Anis



To assess the concurrent validity and responsiveness of the Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) in patients with advanced HIV/AIDS, and to determine the responsiveness of this measure, the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D to HIV-related clinical events.


Data from the OPTIMA (OPTions In Management with Antiretrovirals) trial was analyzed. Two aspects of the validity of the HUI3 were considered: concurrent validity was evaluated using Spearman correlations with MOS-HIV component and summary scores. Responsiveness to AIDS-defining events (ADE) and all adverse events (our external change criterion) was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves.


The study enrolled 368 patients (mean follow-up: 3.66 years); 82% had at least one severe adverse event and 27% had at least one ADE. The HUI3 scale and items showed good concurrent validity, with 85% of the expected relationships with the MOS-HIV subscales verified. The HUI3 was responsive to both adverse events (AUROC [95%CI]: 0.68 [0.57, 0.80]) and ADEs (0.62 [0.51, 0.74]). The EQ-5D was responsive to ADEs (0.66 [0.56, 0.76]), but not responsive to adverse events (0.56 [0.46, 0.68]).


The HUI3 is a valid and responsive measure of the change in HRQoL associated with clinical events in an advanced HIV/AIDS population.


Health utilities index MOS-HIV EQ-5D HIV/AIDS 





Adverse events


Human immunodeficiency virus


Acquired immune deficiency syndrome


Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve


Mental health score


Physical health score



The OPTIMA study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Canada), Cooperative Studies Program of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration (USA), and the Office of Research and Development, Cooperative Studies Program, United Kingdom Medical Research Council. BN was supported by doctoral research awards from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Research in Addictions and Mental Health Policy & Services CIHR strategic training initiative.


  1. 1.
    Torres, R. A., & Barr, M. (1997). Impact of combination therapy for HIV infection on inpatient census. New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 1531–1532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirschel, B., & Francioli, P. (1998). Progress and problems in the fight against AIDS. New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 906–908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crothers, K., Butt, A. A., Gilbert, C. L., Rodriguez-Barradas, M. C., Crystal, S., Justice, A. C., et al. (2006). Increased COPD among HIV-positive compared to HIV-negative veterans. Chest, 130(5), 1326–1333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsiodras, S., Mantzoros, C., Hammer, S., & Samore, M. (2000). Effects of protease inhibitors on hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and lipodystrophy: a 5-year cohort study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160, 2050–2056.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kamin, D. S., & Grinspoon, S. K. (2005). Cardiovascular disease in HIV-positive patients. AIDS, 19, 641–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsasis, P. (2000). Health-related quality of life measurements in HIV/AIDS care. AIDS Patient Care STDs, 14(8), 427–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kyriakides, T. C., Babiker, A., Singer, J., Cameron, W., Schechter, M. T., Holodniy, M., et al. (2003). An open-label randomized clinical trial of novel therapeutic strategies for HIV-infected patients in whom antiretroviral therapy has failed: Rationale and design of the OPTIMA trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 481–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guyatt, G. H., King, D. R., Feeny, D. H., Stubbing, D., & Goldstein, R. S. (1999). Generic and specific measurement of health related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(3), 187–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu, A. W., Jacobson, D. L., Frick, K. D., Clark, R., Revicki, D. A., Freedberg, K. A., et al. (2002). Validity and responsiveness of the EuroQol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Quality of Life Research, 11, 273–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anis, A. H., Nosyk, B., Sun, H., Guh, D. P., Bansback, N., Li, X., & Optima Team (2009). Quality of life of patients with advanced HIV/AIDS: Measuring the impact of both AIDS defining events and non-AIDS serious adverse events. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (in press).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clayson, D. J., Wild, D. J., Quarterman, P., Duprat-Lomon, I., Kubin, M., & Coons, S. J. (2006). A comparative review of health-related quality of life measures for use in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Pharmacoeconomics, 24(8), 751–765.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chan, K. S., & Revicki, D. A. (1998). Changes in surrogate laboratory markers, clinical endpoints, and health-related quality of life in patients with the human immunodeficiency virus. Evaluation & Health Professions, 21(2), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lubeck, D. P., & Fries, J. F. (1992). Changes in quality of life among persons with HIV infection. Quality of Life Research, 1(6), 359–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carretero, M. D., Burgess, A. P., Soler, P., Soler, M., & Catalan, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of an HIV-specific health-related quality of life measure for use with injection drug users. AIDS, 10, 1699–1705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paton, N. I., Chapman, C. A., Chan, S. P., Tan, K. M., Leo, Y. S., Aboulhad, J., et al. (2002). Validation of the medical outcomes study HIV health survey as a measure of quality of life in HIV-infected patients in Singapore. International Journal of STDs and AIDS, 13, 456–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu, A. W., Revicki, D. A., Jacobson, D., & Malitz, F. E. (1997). Evidence for reliability, validity and usefulness of the medical outcomes study HIV health survey (MOS-HIV). Quality of Life Research, 6, 481–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., & Hays, R. D. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 17, 13–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Boyle, M. (1995). Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics, 7(6), 503–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boyle, M. H., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., & Hatcher, J. (1995). Reliability of the Health Utilities Index—mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian General Social Survey Health Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 249–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Torrance, G. (2003). The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bayoumi, A. M., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1999). Economic methods for measuring the quality of life associated with HIV infection. Quality of Life Research, 8, 471–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2006). Quality of life. The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0. Accessed Jan 2009.
  28. 28.
    Sackett, D. L., Haynes, R. B., Tugwell, P. (1985). The interpretation of diagnostic data. In Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine (pp. 59–138). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    DeLong, E. R. (1988). Comparing the areas under tow or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44, 837–845.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of heath status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Revicki, D. A., Wu, A. W., & Murray, M. I. (1995). Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV-infected patients. Medical Care, 33, AS173–AS182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hays, R. D., & Hadorn, D. (1992). Responsiveness to change: An aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Quality of Life Research, 1(1), 73–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II14–II25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Wiersinga, W. M., Prummel, M. F., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 349–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aiken, L. R. (1977). Note on sensitivity: A neglected psychometric concept. Perceptual and motor skills, 45, 1330.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krabbe, P. F. M., Peerenboom, L., Langenhoff, B. S., & Ruers, T. J. M. (2004). Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30. Quality of Life Research, 13, 1247–1253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 459–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bohdan Nosyk
    • 1
  • Huiying Sun
    • 1
  • Nick Bansback
    • 1
  • Daphne P. Guh
    • 1
  • Xin Li
    • 1
  • Paul Barnett
    • 2
  • Ahmed Bayoumi
    • 3
  • Susan Griffin
    • 4
  • Vilija Joyce
    • 2
  • Mark Holodniy
    • 5
  • Doug K. Owens
    • 6
  • Aslam H. Anis
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Canadian HIV Trials NetworkSt. Paul’s HospitalVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Cooperative Studies Program of the US, Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and DevelopmentVA Health Economics Resource CentreMenlo ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Centre for Health EconomicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  5. 5.VA Medical CentrePalo AltoUSA
  6. 6.VA Center for Health Care EvaluationStanfordUSA
  7. 7.Faculty of MedicineSchool of Population and Public HealthVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations