Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
It has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L.
A longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs.
Complete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar.
When comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably.
National Institute for Health Care and Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9/foreword.
Petrillo, J., & Cairns, J. (2008). Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 8(5), 453–461. CrossRef
Guest, J. F., Nanuwa, K., & Barden, R. (2014). Utility values for specific hepatic encephalopathy health states elicited from the general public in the United Kingdom. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1–9. CrossRef
Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Mavranezouli, I., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., Yang, Y., et al. (2012). Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment, 16(2), 1–114.
Wong, S., Fellowes, A., Doig, K., Ellul, J., Bosma, T., Irwin, D., et al. (2015). Assessing the clinical value of targeted massively parallel sequencing in a longitudinal, prospective population-based study of cancer patients. British Journal of Cancer, 112(8), 1411–1420. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.): New York: Academic Press.
Obradovic, M., Lal, A., & Liedgens, H. (2013). Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health and quality of life outcomes, 11(1), 1. CrossRef
Bland, M. J., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 327(8476), 307–310. CrossRef
Rosner, B. A. (2011). The intraclass correlation coefficient. In B. A. Rosner (Ed.), Fundamentals of biostatistics. Pacific Grove.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284. CrossRef
Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., Platts, M., & Zoellner, Y. F. (2005). Estimating a preference-based index for a menopause specific health quality of life questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3(13), 3–13.
Hatswell, A. J., Pennington, B., Pericleous, L., Rowen, D., Lebmeier, M., & Lee, D. (2014). Patient-reported utilities in advanced or metastatic melanoma, including analysis of utilities by time to death. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1. CrossRef
Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & Van Hout, B. (2015). An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. London: Office of Health Economics Research Paper.
Versteegh, M. M., Vermeulen, K. M., Evers, S. M., de Wit, G. A., Prenger, R., & Stolk, E. A. (2016). Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Johnson, J. A., & Group, o. b. o. t. C. E.-D.-L. V. S. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105. CrossRef
Turner, N., Campbell, J., Peters, T. J., Wiles, N., & Hollinghurst, S. (2013). A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 1. CrossRef
Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., Fayers, P. M., Grimison, P. S., Janda, M., Pallant, J. F., et al. (2014). Deriving a preference-based utility measure for cancer patients from the European organisation for the research and treatment of cancer’s quality of life questionnaire C30: A confirmatory versus exploratory approach. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 5, 119. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N., Brazier, J., Cella, D., Costa, D., et al. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 637–649. CrossRef
Howard, D. H., Bach, P. B., Berndt, E. R., & Conti, R. M. (2015). Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 139–162. CrossRef
- Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L
Paula K. Lorgelly
Cancer 2015 investigators
- Springer International Publishing
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta