OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between asthma control level and health-related QOL (HR-QOL), and to understand the role of various psychometric and utility-based methods in studying this relationship. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-eight consecutive adult outpatients and inpatients at four sites participated in the study. Physicians identified the level of disease control according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) classification system. Patients filled in three different HR-QOL questionnaires (EuroQol 5-D [EQ-5D], Short-Form 36-item health survey [SF-36], and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) and a direct time trade-off question. The Short Form-6D (SF-6D) was used to derive utility values from SF-36 data. RESULTS: All patient-reported evaluation methods could discriminate between patients with different disease control levels, and both generic and disease-specific instruments strongly correlated to each other. The magnitude of differences in HR-QOL between groups with different disease control levels was clinically meaningful. All three HR-QOL measures reflected a relationship between disease control level and HR-QOL, but the actual pattern of the relationship depended on the instrument used. Utilities gained from the EQ-5D index, compared with the SF-6D index, had higher values in the patient group with the best disease control and lower values in the patient group with poor disease control. CONCLUSION: When choosing an instrument to measure the health status of asthmatic patients in clinical studies, the severity range of the study population should be considered. Researchers might prefer to use the EQ-5D in asthma patients with severe disease or poor disease control and the SF-6D in patients with mild disease or good disease control.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between asthma control level and health-related QOL (HR-QOL), and to understand the role of various psychometric and utility-based methods in studying this relationship. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-eight consecutive adult outpatients and inpatients at four sites participated in the study. Physicians identified the level of disease control according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) classification system. Patients filled in three different HR-QOL questionnaires (EuroQol 5-D [EQ-5D], Short-Form 36-item health survey [SF-36], and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) and a direct time trade-off question. The Short Form-6D (SF-6D) was used to derive utility values from SF-36 data. RESULTS: All patient-reported evaluation methods could discriminate between patients with different disease control levels, and both generic and disease-specific instruments strongly correlated to each other. The magnitude of differences in HR-QOL between groups with different disease control levels was clinically meaningful. All three HR-QOL measures reflected a relationship between disease control level and HR-QOL, but the actual pattern of the relationship depended on the instrument used. Utilities gained from the EQ-5D index, compared with the SF-6D index, had higher values in the patient group with the best disease control and lower values in the patient group with poor disease control. CONCLUSION: When choosing an instrument to measure the health status of asthmatic patients in clinical studies, the severity range of the study population should be considered. Researchers might prefer to use the EQ-5D in asthmapatients with severe disease or poor disease control and the SF-6D in patients with mild disease or good disease control.
Authors: J Bousquet; J Knani; H Dhivert; A Richard; A Chicoye; J E Ware; F B Michel Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: M P Rutten-van Mölken; F Custers; E K van Doorslaer; C C Jansen; L Heurman; F P Maesen; J J Smeets; A M Bommer; J A Raaijmakers Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Sandra R Wilson; Cynthia S Rand; Michael D Cabana; Michael B Foggs; Jill S Halterman; Lynn Olson; William M Vollmer; Rosalind J Wright; Virginia Taggart Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Edward C F Wilson; Erika J Sims; Stanley D Musgrave; Lee Shepstone; Annie Blyth; Jamie Murdoch; H Miranda Mugford; Elizabeth F Juniper; Jon G Ayres; Stephanie Wolfe; Daryl Freeman; Richard F T Gilbert; Ian Harvey; Elizabeth V Hillyer; David Price Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Lieven Annemans; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Pierre Bartsch; Jacques Prignot; Sophie Marbaix Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Helen M McTaggart-Cowan; Carlo A Marra; Yaling Yang; John E Brazier; Jacek A Kopec; J Mark FitzGerald; Aslam H Anis; Larry D Lynd Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 4.147