EQ-5D–Derived Health State Utility Values in Hematologic Malignancies: A Catalog of 796 Utilities Based on a Systematic Review

Abstract

Objectives: We performed a systematic review of health state utility values (HSUVs) obtained using the EQ-5D questionnaire for patients with hematologic malignancies. Methods:The following databases were searched up to September 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the EQ-5D publications database on the EuroQol website. Additional references were extracted from reviewed articles. Only studies presenting EQ-Index results were incorporated. In view of the heterogeneity across the included publications, we limited ourselves to a narrative synthesis of original HSUVs found.Results: Fifty-nine studies (described in 63 articles) met the inclusion criteria. Data from 21 635 respondents provided 796 HSUV estimates for hematologic malignancy patients. EQ-Index scores ranged from -0.025 to 0.980. The most represented area was multiple myeloma (4 studies, 11 112 patients, and 249 HSUVs). In clinical areas such as chronic myeloid leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma, we described over 50 health utilities in each. In contrast, we identified only 13 HSUVs (based on 4 studies and the data of 166 patients) for Hodgkin lymphoma. Areas without EQ-5D-based health utilities comprised: polycythemia vera, primary myelofibrosis, essential thrombocythemia, mastocytosis, myeloid sarcoma, chronic myelomonocytic, eosinophilic leukemia, and neutrophilic leukemia. Conclusions:There is a wide range of HSUVs available for hematologic cancer patients with different indications. The review provides a catalog of utility values for use in cost-effectiveness models for hematologic malignancies.

Health‐related quality of life in patients with steroid‐refractory acute graft‐versus‐host disease

“…24 More importantly, HRQoL in our patients was not only lower than that of the general population, but also lower than HRQoL in patients with hematologic malignancies without SR-aGvHD. 25,27 For example, Kurosawa et al 28 found that patients with acute (myeloid and lymphoblastic) leukemia who underwent HSCT and did not develop aGvHD had a mean EQ-5D value of 0.80, which was 0.36 in our patients. Furthermore, for bone marrow transplant recipients, Kopp et al 25 A few limitations should be considered while interpreting the results of our study.…”

Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis

“…Furthermore, the terminology used to describe the QA process varied considerably among the SLRs. Terms such as quality appraisal or assessment [ 9 , 23 , 24 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 55 , 57 – 60 , 73 – 78 ], critical appraisal [ 47 ], risk of bias assessment [ 25 , 62 , 63 , 72 , 79 – 82 ], relevancy and quality assessment [ 52 , 56 ], assessment of quality and data appropriateness [ 50 ], methodological quality assessment [ 26 , 27 , 46 , 54 , 61 , 69 ], reporting quality [ 71 , 83 ] credibility checks and methodological review [ 70 ] were used loosely and interchangeably. One study [ 84 ] mentioned three terms, RoB, methodological quality and reporting quality, in their description of the QA process.…”

“…First, this is evident in some of the SLRs [ 89 – 92 ] that did not appraise the quality of contributing studies and cited a lack of a gold standard as the main barrier to conducting such. Second, most of the SLRs that appraised quality did this by customising elements from the different checklist(s) [ 24 , 27 , 75 , 79 , 80 ], or using standardised tools designed to evaluate quality in other types of studies, and not primarily for eliciting HSUVs [ 23 , 27 , 52 , 62 ], and GPRs [ 9 , 26 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 54 – 56 , 61 , 63 , 74 , 84 ]. In this regard, we estimated that SLR authors used, on average, two QA tools, checklists or GPRs (Max = 9) to construct their customised QA tools, with only 14/40 (35%) SLRs using one tool [ 24 , 25 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 57 – 60 , 73 , 75 , 79 , 80 , 82 ].…”