Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values

Selivanova, Anna; Buskens, Erik; Krabbe, Paul F M

doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0647-0

Cited by 27 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to healthy controls, gastric cancer patients were significantly more likely to report more problems in all the five EQ‐5D dimensions, among which pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression were the two mostly impaired dimensions in both gastric cancer patients and healthy controls. This is similar to what has been found in the literature (Selivanova, Buskens, & Krabbe, 2018; Wang, Pan, et al, 2018; Wang, Shi, et al, 2018). Pain was one of the major symptoms seriously affecting the HRQoL of cancer patients with a prevalence ranging of 25%–75% (Paice & Ferrell, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Health‐related quality of life and health utility score of patients with gastric cancer: A multi‐centre cross‐sectional survey in China

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health state utility scores of gastric cancer patients in daily life at different clinical stages after treatment, and to explore influencing factors associated with HRQoL. Methods: Gastric cancer patients discharged from hospitals and healthy controls identified by screening were recruited. The three-level EQ-5D was employed to assess HRQoL and was scored using two Chinese-specific tariffs published in 2014 and 2018. Results: A total of 1,399 patients and 2,179 healthy controls were recruited. The likelihood of reporting problems in the five dimensions for patients was 4.0-23.8 times higher than controls. Based on the 2014/2018 tariff, the mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.321/0.163 lower than controls, and the mean utility scores of each patient subgroup were 0.077/0.039 (high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia/carcinoma in situ), 0.254/0.121 (Stage I), 0.249/0.123 (Stage II), 0.353/0.182 (Stage III) and 0.591/0.309 (Stage IV) lower than controls (all statistically significant). Age, occupation, duration How to cite this article: Xia R, Zeng H, Liu Q, et al. Healthrelated quality of life and health utility score of patients with gastric cancer: A multi-centre cross-sectional survey in China.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Health‐related quality of life and health utility score of patients with gastric cancer: A multi‐centre cross‐sectional survey in China

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and EQ-5D-5L is a potential limitation of this analysis because the EQ-5D-5L generates lower mean utility weights than the EQ-5D-3L, and the EQ-5D-5L has smaller score ranges. 74,75 Although this limitation could have potentially caused our combined EQ-5D to overestimate utility weights, we found for our data set that the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L utility weights at each mRS score did not differ statistically significantly. Third, in keeping with prior research, 25 we assumed that poststroke utility weights remained stable over time.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 69%

Health Utility Weighting of the Modified Rankin Scale

Rebchuk

O’Neill

Szefer³

et al. 2020

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE The utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (UW-mRS) has been proposed as a patient-centered alternative primary outcome for stroke clinical trials. However, to date, there is no clear consensus on an approach to weighting the mRS. OBJECTIVE To characterize the between-study variability in utility weighting of the mRS in a population of patients who experienced stroke and its implications when applied to the results of a clinical trial. DATA SOURCES In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from January 1987 through May 2019 using major search terms for stroke, health utility, and mRS. STUDY SELECTION Original research articles published in English were reviewed. Included were studies with participants 18 years or older with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or subarachnoid hemorrhage, with mRS scores and utility weights evaluated concurrently. A total of 5725 unique articles were identified. Of these, 283 met criteria for full-text review, and 24 were included in the meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS PRISMA guidelines for systematic review were followed. Data extraction was performed independently by multiple researchers. Data were pooled using mixed models. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The mean utility weights and 95% CIs were calculated for each mRS score and health utility scale. Geographic differences in weighting for the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) and Stroke Impact Scale-based UW-mRS were explored using inverse variance-weighted linear models. The results of 18 major acute stroke trials cited in current guidelines were then reanalyzed using the UW-mRS weighting scales identified in the systematic review. RESULTS The meta-analysis included 22 389 individuals; the mean (SD) age of participants was 65.9 (4.0) years, and the mean (SD) proportion of male participants was 58.2% (7.5%). For all health utility scales evaluated, statistically significant differences were observed between the mean utility weights by mRS score. For studies using an EQ-5D-weighted mRS, between-study variance was higher for worse (mRS 2-5) compared with better (mRS 0-1) scores. Of the 18 major acute stroke trials with reanalyzed results, 3 had an unstable outcome when using different UW-mRSs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Multiple factors, including cohort-specific characteristics and health utility scale selection, can influence mRS utility weighting. If the UW-mRS is selected as a primary outcome, the approach to weighting may alter the results of a clinical trial. Researchers using (continued) Key Points Question Is a preexisting health utilityweighted outcome scale suitable for use in a clinical trial, or is a study-specific approach more appropriate? Findings Among 24 studies including 22 389 individuals, this systematic review and meta-analysis found statistically significant between-study differences for studies reporting utility weighting of the modified Rankin Scale. When applied to the results of major acute stroke trials, different studysp...

show abstract

“…We suppose that this is primarily a consequence of a change in health state preferences over the period of one or two decades separating the valuation studies, rather than the effect of different wording in the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. We may observe this phenomenon in England, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Japan [34, 36–38, 50, 51], whereas in lower income countries, such as Uruguay or The Philippines, anxiety/depression remains the least important domain [52, 53]. In addition to this observation, the predominance of the mobility dimension in Asian countries (China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Thailand) merits further investigation [39, 54–57].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States in Poland: the First EQ-VT-Based Study in Central and Eastern Europe

Golicki

Jakubczyk

Graczyk³

et al. 2019

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveCost-utility analyses are becoming increasingly important in Central and Eastern Europe. We aimed to develop a Polish utility tariff for EQ-5D-5L health states.MethodsFace-to-face, computer-assisted interviews were collected in a representative sample. Each respondent followed a standardised protocol to collect ten composite time trade-off and seven discrete choice experiment observations. In the Bayesian approach, several model specifications were compared based on model fit, the usability of the final value set and how they reflect the elicitation procedure (e.g. censoring). A hybrid approach (using composite time trade-off and discrete choice experiment data) was employed in the final set, which was compared with the existing ones: EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L cross-walk.ResultsData from 1252 respondents (11,480 composite time trade-off valuations and 8764 discrete choice experiment pairs) were collected over the period June to October 2016. The final model accounted for random parameters, error scaling with fat tails, censoring at − 1, unwillingness to trade in time trade-off by the religious people and Cauchy distribution in discrete choice experiments. Pain/discomfort impacts the utility most: the disutility equals 0.575 when at level 5. In the value set, 4.4% of EQ-5D-5L states are worse than dead. The new value set has a comparable range (minimum of − 0.590 compared to − 0.523) and the same ordering of the first three dimensions (pain/discomfort, mobility, self-care) as the EQ-5D-3L value set and the EQ-5D-5L cross-walk value set. Moreover, it is more sensitive to a moderate decline in health.ConclusionsThe new value set supports consistency with past decisions in cost-utility studies, while offering a better assessment of even moderate improvements in health. It could represent an option for Central and Eastern Europe countries lacking their own value sets.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00811-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values

Cited by 27 publications

References 53 publications

Health‐related quality of life and health utility score of patients with gastric cancer: A multi‐centre cross‐sectional survey in China

Health‐related quality of life and health utility score of patients with gastric cancer: A multi‐centre cross‐sectional survey in China

Health Utility Weighting of the Modified Rankin Scale

Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States in Poland: the First EQ-VT-Based Study in Central and Eastern Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About