Investigating 5-Level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Values Based on Preferences of Patients With Heart Disease

ObjectivesSeveral studies have shown that patients with heart disease value hypothetical health states differently from the general population. We aimed to investigate the health preferences of patients with heart disease and develop a value set for the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) based on these patient preferences.MethodsPatients with confirmed heart disease were recruited from 2 hospitals in Singapore. A total of 86 EQ-5D-5L health states (10 per patient) were valued using a composite time trade-off method according to the international valuation protocol for EQ-5D-5L; 20-parameter linear models and 8-parameter cross-attribute level effects models with and without an N45 term (indicating whether any health state dimension at level 4 or 5 existed) were estimated. Each model included patient-specific random intercepts. Model performance was evaluated for out-of-sample and in-sample predictive accuracy in terms of root mean square error. The discriminative ability of the utility values was assessed using heart disease-related functional classes.ResultsA total of 576 patients were included in the analysis. The preferred model, with the lowest out-of-sample root mean square error, was a 20-parameter linear model including N45. Predicted utility values ranged from ?0.727 for the worst state to 1 for full health; the value for the second-best state was 0.981. Utility values demonstrated good discriminative ability in differentiating among patients of varied functional classes.ConclusionsAn EQ-5D-5L value set representing the preferences of patients with heart disease was developed. The value set could be used for patient-centric economic evaluation and health-related quality of life assessment for patients with heart disease.     

An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D<Subscript>index</Subscript>, SF-6D,and EQ VAS,using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether three health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) measures (the EQ-5D(index), SF-6D, and EQ VAS) can discriminate between the HRQL of different groups of individuals. METHODS: In one UK general practice a cross-sectional survey requested information on six sociodemographic factors, 10 clinical conditions, and the three HRQL measures. Regression analyses were used to assess whether there was a significant difference in HRQL between groups with different sociodemographic factors and those with and without clinical conditions. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred and sixty-five questionnaires were returned. There was a significant difference between the HRQL of the majority of different groups according to each HRQL measure. However, not all of the measures could discriminate between groups of different ethnicity, gender, or smoking status, or those with and without asthma, stroke, cancer or diabetes. CONCLUSION: The HRQL of the majority of different groups could be discriminated between by the EQ-5D(index), SF-6D, and EQ VAS.     

US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: Does choice of preference weights make a difference?

Background Most US studies that estimate EQ-5D index score generally apply the UK preference weights. We compared the validity of a newly-developed US weights to the UK weights for use of EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life. Methods Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial for patients with HIV (n = 1,126) in the US. Convergent validity was examined by comparing Pearson correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV Health Survey scale scores and Physical and Mental Health Summary (PHS, MHS) scores using the US and UK weights. Known-groups validity of EQ-5D US versus UK index scores was compared using clinical variables (CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load), and the MOS-HIV PHS and MHS. Score changes in the EQ-5D index from baseline to week 50 were examined using effect size (ES) estimates. Results The mean EQ-5D index scores was slightly higher using US weights than UK weights (0.87 vs. 0.84, respectively). The correlation coefficient for EQ-5D utilities using the US and UK weights was 0.98. The correlations of EQ-5D index scores with the MOS-HIV scores were moderate and similar using the US and UK weights. The EQ-5D index scores discriminated equally well for both versions between levels of CD4+ count, HIV viral load, and PHS and MHS scores (P < 0.05), suggesting equivalent known-groups validity. The changes in EQ-5D index scores from baseline to week 50 were similar for both versions (ES: 0.21 vs. 0.22 for US and UK, respectively), suggesting equivalent responsiveness to score changes. Conclusions EQ-5D index scores generated using UK and US preference weights showed equivalent psychometric properties. For assessing treatment benefit in a single population, the use of either the UK or US weights as a measure of HRQOL will not change inferences. However, for comparisons across US and UK populations, the choice between these two weights should be based on their relevance to the study population.     

EQ-5D量表附加维度及应用述评

欧洲五维健康量表(EQ-5D)已成为世界上应用最为广泛的量表之一,为进一步提高EQ-5D量表在某些状况下的敏感度,附加维度(bolt-on dimension)的概念应运而生.文章系统介绍了EQ-5D附加维度的概念、产生背景、研究现状,并梳理目前研究的主要问题,对其研究前景进行展望,以期为国内学者开展相关研究提供参考.     

Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured on population level may be useful to guide policies for health. This study aims to describe the HRQoL; in EQ-5D dimensions, mean rating scale (RS) scores and mean EQ-5D index values, in the general population, by certain disease and socio-economic groups, in Stockholm County 1998. The EQ-5D self-classifier and a RS were included in the 1998 cross-sectional postal Stockholm County public health survey to a representative sample (n = 4950, 20-88 years), 63% response rate. Mean RS score ranged from 0.90 (20-29 years) to 0.69 (80-88 years), mean EQ-5D index value ranged from 0.89 (20-29 years) to 0.74 (80-88 years). For different diseases mean RS scores ranged from 0.80 (asthma) to 0.69 (angina pectoris), mean EQ-5D index values ranged from 0.79 (asthma) to 0.66 (low back pain). The mean health state scores (RS and EQ-5D index) were 0.06 lower in the unskilled manual group than in the higher non-manual group after controlling for age and sex (p < 0.0001). This difference was 0.03 after controlling also for different diseases (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, our results show that the HRQoL varies greatly between socio-economic and disease groups. Furthermore, after controlling for age, sex and disease, HRQoL is lower in manual than in non-manual groups.     

Mapping From Visual Acuity to EQ-5D,EQ-5D With Vision Bolt-On,and VFQ-UI in Patients With Macular Edema in the LEAVO Trial

ObjectivesMappings to convert clinical measures to preference-based measures of health such as the EQ-5D-3L are sometimes required in cost-utility analyses. We developed mappings to convert best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) to the EQ-5D-3L, the EQ-5D-3L with a vision bolt-on (EQ-5D V), and the Visual Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index (VFQ-UI) in patients with macular edema caused by central retinal vein occlusion.MethodsWe used data from Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in vein occlusion (LEAVO), which is a phase-3 randomized controlled trial comparing ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab in 463 patients with observations at 6 time points. We estimated adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models consisting of 1 to 4 distributions (components) using BCVA in each eye, age, and sex to predict utility within the components and BCVA as a determinant of component membership. We compared model fit using mean error, mean absolute error, root mean square error, Akaike information criteria, Bayesian information criteria, and visual inspection of mean predicted and observed utilities and cumulative distribution functions.ResultsMean utility scores were 0.82 for the EQ-5D-3L, 0.79 for the EQ-5D V, and 0.88 for the VFQ-UI. The best-fitting models for the EQ-5D and EQ-5D V had 2 components (with means of approximately 0.44 and 0.85), and the best-fitting model for VFQ-UI had 3 components (with means of approximately 0.95, 0.74, and 0.90).ConclusionsModels with multiple components better predict utility than those with single components. This article provides a valuable addition to the literature, in which previous mappings in visual acuity have been limited to linear regressions, resulting in unfounded assumptions about the distribution of the dependent variable.     

A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions

This paper examines the differences in health state evaluations given by patients when they are asked to value their own current states, and those given by members of the general population who were asked to value hypothetical health states. Patient data consist of 4137 observations on EQ-5D profiles and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) obtained from 3376 patients, covering eight different conditions. General population data are taken from the EQ-5D valuation set. Two analyses were carried out. In the first, the patient self-rated VAS was compared with population VAS values for the same health states. In the second, the patient self-rated VAS values were modelled, and the regression coefficients were compared with the corresponding coefficients from the general population study. The first analysis resulted in a statistically significant mean difference of -0.012 (0.647 for patient VAS, 0.659 from the population value set). The second analysis found statistically significant differences between the coefficients for the EQ-5D health dimensions Pain/Discomfort, Mobility and Anxiety/Depression. Anxiety/Depression had the largest impact on the patient model compared with Pain/Discomfort in the general population model. A further regression analysis suggests that the magnitude of disagreement between patient self-rated VAS model and the population VAS model depends on the patients' condition.     

EQ-5D和SF-6D测量同期健康效用值的比较研究

目的:比较EQ-5D和SF-6D两个量表的适用性,为药物经济学评价过程中效用值测量工具的选择提供参考。方法:基于已有文献,从效用均值的分布、差异、可交换性及适用性、敏感性分析四个方面,对两个量表进行比较。结果:EQ-5D的效用均值略呈左偏分布,SF-6D较符合正态分布;两个量表在不同分段的效用均值存在差异,一致性较差。结论:两个量表不具有可互换性,在应用过程中应充分考虑两者差异,根据疾病特点选择合适的量表,SF-6D多适用于进程缓慢的疾病,EQ-5D多适用于测量较差的健康状态。     

欧洲EQ-5D量表用于杭州市余杭区慢性淋巴丝虫病生命质量调查

目的:采用欧洲EQ-5D量表评价慢性淋巴丝虫病人生命质量。方法:对杭州市余杭区276例慢性丝虫病人进行自评量表式调查,内容包括一般情况问卷调查和EQ-5D量表测量。结果:目标人群中EQ-5D指数平均得分为0.77±0.13,单因素方差分析显示,不同性别、年龄、婚姻、工作状况、家庭年收入的目标人群在EQ-5D得分上差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。EQ-5D5个维度测量,问题报告率主要在疼痛/不舒服(47.8%)、日常活动(报告率44.9%)、行动(43.8%)3个维度出现较高。多元logistic逐步回归分析,疼痛/不舒服维度影响因素主要为性别、婚姻状况。日常活动维度为性别、年龄、婚姻状况。行动维度影响因素为家庭收入。焦虑/抑郁维度影响因素为婚姻状况。自我照顾维度影响因素为年龄、家庭年收入。结论:在目标人群中女性、老年人、丧偶、文盲、低经济收入状况的患者生命质量较次,是关怀照料工作的重点对象,干预的重点内容则应放在减轻病人病痛和提高病人日常活动及行动能力方面。     

Valuing health using EQ‐5D: The impact of chronic diseases on the stock of health

Chronic diseases strongly affect individuals' health status. In aggregate terms, this impact is reflected by the stock of health, which measures the amount of health of a population in a given period of time. The objectives of this study were to measure the relative burden of chronic illnesses by assessing health‐related quality of life using the EQ‐5D‐5L instrument, to rank diseases according to their associations with the stock of health, and to calculate the stock of health of the Spanish population and the amount of health loss attributable to each chronic disease from a social perspective. Data were gathered from the Spanish Health Survey (ENSE 2011–2012, N = 20,587). A population weighted least squares model was used. Chronic diseases represent 19.19% of the stock of health losses in Spain compared with a country free from those diseases. In Spain, the stock of health in 2011 was 31.86 million units on the visual analog scale. The diseases with the strongest impact in terms of loss of stock of health at the individual level were mental illness and embolism, stroke, or cerebral hemorrhage. Collectively, the diseases with the largest impact included osteoarthritis, arthritis, or rheumatism; chronic back pain; and high blood pressure.     

Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication

The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D (EQ-5D) were compared to each other and to other quality-of-life (QoL) measures in patients treated for intermittent claudication. A total of 88 patients with intermittent claudication completed the HUI3, EQ-5D, RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0, time tradeoff, standard gamble, and rating scale before revascularization and at follow-up at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year. The effect of treatment on the HUI3 and EQ-5D dimensions and the overall scores, calculated using published formulas based on societal preferences, were compared. After 1 month of treatment, the majority of patients showed improvement on the HUI3 dimensions ambulation and pain and on the EQ-5D dimensions mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort. The mean HUI3 score was significantly higher than the mean EQ-5D score (0.66 and 0.57, respectively, p < 0.01) before treatment. After treatment, however, they were not significantly different from each other (e.g., 12 months after treatment: 0.77 and 0.75, respectively (p > 0.05). After 1 month, the scores did not change significantly over time (p > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient between changes over time in the HUI3 and EQ-5D scores was 0.30, with other health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures the correlations for HUI3 and EQ-5D were very similar. In conclusion, both the HUI3 and EQ-5D demonstrated an effect of treatment in patients with intermittent claudication; in addition, they showed similar relationships with other (HRQoL) measures. To demonstrate the effect of revascularization in patients with intermittent claudication, however, clinicians and researchers should be aware of the differences in the mean HUI3 and EQ-5D scores. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in Long-Lasting Low Back Pain

Objectives:  The objective of this study was to investigate the interchangeability of the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) in individuals with long-lasting low back pain to guide the optimal choice of instrument and to inform decision-makers about any between-measure discrepancy, which require careful interpretation of the results of cost-utility evaluations.
Methods:  A cross-sectional study was conducted across 275 individuals who had spinal surgery on indication of chronic low back pain. EQ-5D and SF-6D were mailed to respondents for self-completion. Statistical analysis of between-measure agreement (using English weights) was based on Bland and Altman's limits of agreement and a series of linear regressions.
Results:  A moderate mean difference of 0.085 (SD 0.241) was found, but because it masked more severe bidirectional variation, the expected variation between observations of EQ-5D and SF-6D in future studies was estimated at 0.546. The EQ-5D's N3 term alone explained a factor of 0.79 of the variation in between-measure differences, while the explanatory value of adding variables of age, sex, diagnosis, previous surgery, and occupational status was basically zero. A final model including only dummy variables for the N3 term and five identified framing effects explained a factor of 0.86 of the variation in between-measure differences.
Conclusions:  Although the EQ-5D and the SF-6D are both psychometrically valid for generic outcome assessment in long-lasting low back pain, it appears that they cannot generally be used interchangeably for measurement of preference values. Sensitivity analysis examining the impact of between-measure discrepancy thus remains a necessary condition for the interpretation of the results of cost-utility evaluations.     

An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients

There remains disagreement about the preferred utility-based measure of health-related quality of life for use in constructing quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The recent development of a new measure, the SF-6D, has highlighted this issue. The SF-6D and EuroQol EQ-5D measure health-related utilities on a scale where 0 represents death and 1 represents full health, and both have utility scores generated from random samples of the general UK population. This study explored whether, in a large sample of liver transplant patients, the two instruments provide similar results. The empirical data highlight important variation in the results generated from the use of the two instruments. The data are consistent with a view that the SF-6D does not describe health states at the lower end of the utility scale but is more sensitive than EQ-5D in detecting small changes towards the top of the scale.     

Selecting Bolt-On Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Examining Their Contribution to Health-Related Quality of Life

Background

Generic preference-based measures may miss dimensions important for the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients. When this happens, a possible solution is to add bolt-ons. Finch et al. (Finch AP, Brazier JE, Mukuria C, Bjorner JB. An exploratory study on using principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to identify bolt-on dimensions: the EQ-5D case study. Value Health 2017;10:1362–75) have recently shown that bolt-ons can be systematically identified using factor analysis. Nevertheless, because for each bolt-on option a complete re-evaluation may be required, methods to select between them are needed.

A Comparison of a Preliminary Version of the EQ-HWB Short and the 5-Level Version EQ-5D

ObjectivesThe EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S) is a new broad generic measure of health and wellbeing for use in economic evaluations of interventions across healthcare, social care, and public health. This measure conceptually overlaps with the 5-level version EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), while expanding on the coverage of health and social care related dimensions. This study aims to examine the extent to which the EQ-HWB-S and EQ-5D-5L overlap and are different.MethodsA sample of US-based respondents (n = 903; n = 400 cancer survivors and n = 503 general population) completed a survey administered via an online panel. The survey included the EQ-HWB item pool (62 items, including 11 items used in this analysis), EQ-5D-5L, and questions about sociodemographic and health characteristics. The analysis included (Spearman’s) correlations, the comparison of patterns of response (distributions and ceiling effects), and the ability to discriminate between known groups.ResultsModerate to strong associations were found between conceptually overlapping dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-HWB-S (r_s > 0.5, P < .001). Among respondents reporting full health on the EQ-5D-5L (n = 161, 18.23%), the EQ-HWB-S identified ceiling effects, particularly with the item “feeling exhausted.” Most EQ-5D-5L and EQ-HWB-S items demonstrated discriminative ability among those with and without physical and mental conditions, yielding medium (> 0.5) to large effect sizes (> 0.8). Nevertheless, only EQ-HWB-S items distinguished between caregivers and noncaregivers and those with low and high caregiver burden, albeit with small effect sizes (0.2-0.5).ConclusionsResults indicate a convergence between the measures, especially between overlapping dimensions, lending support to the validity of the EQ-HWB-S. The EQ-HWB-S performed similarly or better than the EQ-5D-5L among patient groups and is better able to differentiate among caregivers and respondents closer to full health.     

The Construct and Concurrent Validity of the EQ-5D in a Renal Transplant Population

OBJECTIVES: Cost-utility analysis in renal transplant populations requires the use of a generic instrument for health status measurement that generates a single value for health. Such instruments should be widely applicable in diverse patient populations and their validity should be established. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of the EQ-5D in renal transplant patients. METHODS: The EQ-5D was compared with the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), the modified transplant symptom occurrence and symptom distress (MTSOSD) scale, the short-form Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Construct and concurrent validity were tested on cross-sectional data of 350 patients. RESULTS: Construct validity is good for some but not all EQ-5D dimensions, and the EQ-5D discriminates well among groups of patients with different health states according to the SF-36, MTSOSD scale, BDI, and STAI and between patients and the general public. Concurrent validity is good, as shown by the correspondence of EQ-5D and SF-36 results. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the EQ-5D is a valid instrument for the measurement of health status in renal transplant patients.     

Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL

As more research is undertaken on the elderly, accurately assessing changes in their quality of life becomes increasingly important. Generic instruments are the most popular method to assess quality of life, and one of the most widely used is the EQ-5D. However, the range of dimensions, sensitivity of scales and completion rates have been raised as concerns when using this measure with the elderly. The AQoL is a newer instrument which offers greater richness in dimensions of health covered, and potentially offers greater sensitivity to changes in quality of life. This paper presents the results of a 'head-to-head' comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL in terms of practicality, construct validity, agreement (of absolute scores and their change over time) and sensitivity to change, as part of a randomised controlled trial in the elderly. Poor agreement was found between both the absolute scores from each instrument and change in scores over time. Although the AQoL appeared to have more favourable construct validity, the EQ-5D was easier to administer, had a higher completion rate, and appeared more sensitive to change. We conclude that the AQoL is probably less well suited to measuring health status in a very elderly population than the EQ-5D.     

Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample

Background  Preference-based health index scores provide a single summary score assessing overall health-related quality of life and are useful as an outcome measure in clinical studies, for estimating quality-adjusted life years for economic evaluations, and for monitoring the health of populations. We predicted EuroQoL (EQ-5D) index scores from patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks. Methods  This was a secondary analysis of health outcome data collected in an internet survey as part of the PROMIS Wave 1 field testing. For this study, we included the 10 global items and the physical function, fatigue, pain impact, anxiety, and depression item banks. Linear regression analyses were used to predict EQ-5D index scores based on the global items and selected domain banks. Results  The regression models using eight of the PROMIS global items (quality of life, physical activities, mental health, emotional problems, social activities, pain, and fatigue and either general health or physical health items) explained 65% of the variance in the EQ-5D. When the PROMIS domain scores were included in a regression model, 57% of the variance was explained in EQ-5D scores. Comparisons of predicted to actual EQ-5D scores by age and gender groups showed that they were similar. Conclusions  EQ-5D preference scores can be predicted accurately from either the PROMIS global items or selected domain banks. Application of the derived regression model allows the estimation of health preference scores from the PROMIS health measures for use in economic evaluations.