Estimating Cost-Effectiveness Using Alternative Preference-Based Scores and Within-Trial Methods: Exploring the Dynamics of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Using the EQ-5D 5-Level Version and Recovering Quality of Life Utility Index

ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and subsequent cost-effectiveness estimates based on the more physical health–focused EQ-5D 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L) value set for England or cross-walked EQ-5D 3-level version UK value set scores or more mental health recovery-focused Recovering Quality of Life Utility Index (ReQoL-UI), when using alternative within-trial statistical methods. We describe possible reasons for the different QALY estimates based on the interaction between item scores, health state profiles, preference-based scores, and mathematical and statistical methods chosen.MethodsQALYs are calculated over 8 weeks from a case study 2:1 (intervention:control) randomized controlled trial in patients with anxiety or depression. Complete case and with missing cases imputed using multiple-imputation analyses are conducted, using unadjusted and regression baseline-adjusted QALYs. Cost-effectiveness is judged using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and acceptability curves. We use previously established psychometric results to reflect on estimated QALYs.ResultsA total of 361 people (241:120) were randomized. EQ-5D-5L crosswalk produced higher incremental QALYs than the value set for England or ReQoL-UI, which produced similar unadjusted QALYs, but contrasting baseline-adjusted QALYs. Probability of cost-effectiveness <£30 000 per QALY ranged from 6% (complete case ReQoL-UI baseline-adjusted QALYs) to 64.3% (multiple-imputation EQ-5D-5L crosswalk unadjusted QALYs). The control arm improved more on average than the intervention arm on the ReQoL-UI, a result not mirrored on the EQ-5D-5L nor condition-specific (Patient-Health Questionnaire-9, depression; Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, anxiety) measures.ConclusionsReQoL-UI produced contradictory cost-effectiveness results relative to the EQ-5D-5L. The EQ-5D-5L’s better responsiveness and “anxiety/depression” and “usual activities” items drove the incremental QALY results. The ReQoL-UI’s single physical health item and “personal recovery” construct may have influenced its lower 8-week incremental QALY estimates in this patient sample.     

Pain in desmoid-type fibromatosis: Prevalence,determinants and prognosis value

The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence, determinants and prognostic value of pain at diagnosis in patients with desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF). We selected patients from the ALTITUDES cohort (NCT02867033), managed by surgery, active surveillance or systemic treatments, with pain assessment at diagnosis. Patients were invited to fill QLQ-C30 questionnaire and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale. Determinants were identified using logistic models. Prognostic value on event-free survival (EFS) was evaluated using the Cox model. Overall, 382 patients were included in the current study (median age: 40.2 years; 117 men). The prevalence of pain was 36%, without significant difference according to first-line treatment (P = .18). In the multivariate analysis, pain was significantly associated with tumor size >50 mm (P = .013) and tumor site (P < .001); pain was more frequent in the neck and shoulder locations (odds ratio: 3.05 [1.27-7.29]). Pain at baseline was significantly associated with poor quality of life (P < .001), depression (P = .02), lower performance status (P = .03) and functional impairment (P = .001); we also observed a nonsignificant association with anxiety (P = .10). In the univariate analysis, baseline pain was associated with poor EFS; the 3-year EFS was 54% in patients with pain compared to 72% in those without pain. After adjustment for sex, age, size and line of treatment, pain was still associated with poor EFS (hazard ratio: 1.82 [1.23-2.68], P = .003). One third of recently diagnosed patients with DF experienced pain, especially those with larger tumors and neck/shoulder locations. Pain was associated with unfavorable EFS after adjustment for the confounders.     

妊娠晚期孕妇抑郁情绪对新生儿神经行为发育的影响

目的探讨妊娠晚期孕妇抑郁情绪对新生儿神经行为发育的影响。方法选取2017年1月—2018年12月,收治本院的160例妊娠晚期孕妇抑郁情绪患者一般临床资料,妊娠周期28周以上,对孕妇抑郁情绪进行统计采用爱丁堡抑郁自评量表、负性认知加工偏向量表,对新生儿神经行为进行评估时按照婴儿神经国际量表。结果160例妊娠晚期孕妇抑郁情绪患者中,阳性30例、阴性130例,与阴性妊娠妇女相比,抑郁阳性妊娠妇女负性沉思偏向、负性解释偏向、负性记忆偏向、负性注意偏向均显著较高,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。160例新生儿中,婴儿神经国际量表评分处于临界值为60例,正常值为100例,神经行为异常发生率为37.50%,负性沉思偏向、负性注意偏向与婴儿神经国际临界值呈负相关关系(P<0.05);与抑郁自评量表无明显相关性(P>0.05)。结论妊娠晚期孕妇具有较高抑郁发生率,其中负性认知加工偏向中负性沉思偏向、负性注意偏向与新生儿神经行为发育具有明显相关性。     

Depression in Primary Care

Depression is a heterogeneous disorder with a wide range of presentations. Most patients with depression are seen in primary care, where it is often unrecognized; thus, screening for depression is important. Medical conditions can mimic depression and vice versa. For mild cases of depression, symptom monitoring and nonpharmacologic strategies are generally recommended initially, whereas psychotherapy and antidepressant drugs are first-line treatment for moderate to severe cases. Patients with depression often experience relapse, recurrence, or both, and multiple options are available. Primary care providers are central to screening, diagnosing, and subsequently treating or referring these patients.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎出院患者生活质量及影响因素研究

目的:了解新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)患者出院后的生活质量及其影响因素,为优化早期干预方案,预防社区生活受限,制定相应社区康复措施提供依据。方法:选择2020年3—4月在武汉华润武钢总医院治愈出院的COVID-19患者57例,于2020年4—5月通过"问卷星"平台采用简明健康状况调查量表(SF-12V2)调查患者的生活质量;采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)调查患者的焦虑状态;采用抑郁自评量表(SDS)调查患者的抑郁状态;采用呼吸困难指数量表(mMRC)调查患者的呼吸困难程度。比较不同特征COVID-19患者生活质量的差异;分析患者生活质量与焦虑、抑郁和呼吸困难程度的相关性及其相关的影响因素。结果:共发放57份调查问卷,剔除重复及无效问卷3份,获得有效问卷54份,问卷有效率达94.74%。(1)COVID-19出院后患者生活质量情况:生理总评分和心理总评分分别为(37.02±12.32)分、(38.46±14.42)分;呼吸困难等级0~3级的分别为3例(5.56%)、45例(83.33%)、5例(9.26%)、1例(1.85%);有19例(35.19%)存在焦虑情绪(SAS≥50分)和抑郁情绪(SDS≥53分)。(2)不同特征COVID-19患者生活质量比较:不同疾病分型的患者在生理总评分方面差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。(3)生活质量与焦虑、抑郁和呼吸困难程度的相关性分析:Pearson相关分析结果显示,SF-12V2生理总评分与焦虑程度(r=-0.34,P=0.011)和呼吸困难程度(r=-0.39,P=0.003)之间存在负相关性,SF-12V2心理总评分与焦虑程度(r=-0.46,P=0.001)和抑郁程度(r=-0.40,P=0.002)之间存在负相关性。(4)COVID-19患者生活质量的影响因素分析:多元线性回归分析显示,性别(β=8.27)、抑郁程度(β=-0.34)和疾病分型(β=-11.68)是患者SF-12V2生理总评分的重要决定因素(P<0.05);焦虑程度(β=-0.62)是患者SF-12V2心理总评分的重要决定因素(P<0.05)。结论:COVID-19出院患者存在呼吸困难、焦虑抑郁情绪和生活质量下降的问题;性别、疾病分型、抑郁程度和焦虑程度是COVID-19患者生活质量下降的重要因素。COVID-19患者(特别是女性患者和重型患者)出院后要尽早进行抑郁症和焦虑症的筛查和干预,减少患者负性情绪,鼓励患者适当参与康复训练,提高呼吸功能,从而促进生活质量提高。     

新型冠状病毒肺炎流行期间基于列线图预测隔离留观患者的焦虑抑郁情绪

<正>新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)因其传播速度快、传染性强及人群易感等特点,已被我国列入乙类传染病并按甲类传染病管理[1]。发热门诊隔离留观的患者具有发热等类新冠症状且面对环境的改变对心理可能带来负面影响。故本研究探讨COVID-19流行期间发热门诊隔离留观患者焦虑抑郁情绪及相关因素,以期尽早识别高危患者并进行心理干预治疗。     

Depression in a Patient With Alzheimer Disease

This is a case study of a 73-year-old woman recently diagnosed with Alzheimer disease living in an assisted living facility who presented to an outpatient behavioral health clinic with her son for evaluation and treatment of depression. This article highlights the presentation of depression (a diagnosis) versus apathy (a symptom of Alzheimer disease) and the need to assess for co-occurring mood disorders that warrant pharmacologic intervention as well as treatment for cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease.