Ramon Luengo-Fernandez1, Alastair M Gray, Linda Bull, Sarah Welch, Fiona Cuthbertson, Peter M Rothwell. 1. From the Health Economics Research Centre (R.L.-F., A.M.G.), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford; and the Stroke Prevention Research Unit (L.B., S.W., F.C., P.M.R), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 5-year impact of stroke and TIA on utility and quality-adjusted survival. METHODS: TIA and stroke patients from a UK population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study) were recruited from 2002 to 2007, and followed up until 2012. Quality of life was assessed over 5 years using the EQ-5D (EuroQol-5 Dimensions), with responses converted into utilities ranging from -0.59 (worse than death) to 1 (perfect health), using UK population valuations. Utilities for stroke and TIA patients were compared with those in matched controls obtained from the 2006 Health Survey for England. Five-year quality-adjusted life years were estimated by combining utility and survival information. RESULTS: Four hundred forty TIA and 748 stroke patients were ascertained and included. Utility remained constant at approximately 0.78 over the 5 years after TIA. Utility improved from 0.64 one month after stroke to 0.70 at 6 months (p = 0.006), remaining at approximately 0.70 thereafter. Matched controls had considerably higher utility levels than stroke/TIA patients (0.85, p < 0.001). Event severity and recurrent stroke were significant predictors of decreased long-term utility. Five-year quality-adjusted life expectancy was 3.32 (95% confidence interval: 3.22-3.48) quality-adjusted life years after TIA and 2.21 (2.15-2.37) after stroke, varying considerably by severity (minor: 2.94; moderate: 1.65; and severe: 0.70). CONCLUSION: Quality-adjusted survival is low over the 5 years after stroke and TIA, with severity and recurrent stroke being major predictors. There remains considerable scope for improvements in acute treatment and secondary prevention to improve the quality of life after TIA and stroke.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 5-year impact of stroke and TIA on utility and quality-adjusted survival. METHODS: TIA and stroke patients from a UK population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study) were recruited from 2002 to 2007, and followed up until 2012. Quality of life was assessed over 5 years using the EQ-5D (EuroQol-5 Dimensions), with responses converted into utilities ranging from -0.59 (worse than death) to 1 (perfect health), using UK population valuations. Utilities for stroke and TIA patients were compared with those in matched controls obtained from the 2006 Health Survey for England. Five-year quality-adjusted life years were estimated by combining utility and survival information. RESULTS: Four hundred forty TIA and 748 stroke patients were ascertained and included. Utility remained constant at approximately 0.78 over the 5 years after TIA. Utility improved from 0.64 one month after stroke to 0.70 at 6 months (p = 0.006), remaining at approximately 0.70 thereafter. Matched controls had considerably higher utility levels than stroke/TIA patients (0.85, p < 0.001). Event severity and recurrent stroke were significant predictors of decreased long-term utility. Five-year quality-adjusted life expectancy was 3.32 (95% confidence interval: 3.22-3.48) quality-adjusted life years after TIA and 2.21 (2.15-2.37) after stroke, varying considerably by severity (minor: 2.94; moderate: 1.65; and severe: 0.70). CONCLUSION: Quality-adjusted survival is low over the 5 years after stroke and TIA, with severity and recurrent stroke being major predictors. There remains considerable scope for improvements in acute treatment and secondary prevention to improve the quality of life after TIA and stroke.
Authors: Michael J Leach; Seana L Gall; Helen M Dewey; Richard A L Macdonell; Amanda G Thrift Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: R Baker; I Bateman; C Donaldson; M Jones-Lee; E Lancsar; G Loomes; H Mason; M Odejar; J L Pinto Prades; A Robinson; M Ryan; P Shackley; R Smith; R Sugden; J Wildman Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: G P Samsa; D B Matchar; L Goldstein; A Bonito; P W Duncan; J Lipscomb; C Enarson; D Witter; P Venus; J E Paul; M Weinberger Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: P M Rothwell; A J Coull; L E Silver; J F Fairhead; M F Giles; C E Lovelock; J N E Redgrave; L M Bull; S J V Welch; F C Cuthbertson; L E Binney; S A Gutnikov; P Anslow; A P Banning; D Mant; Z Mehta Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-11-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Xuanqian Xie; Anna Lambrinos; Brian Chan; Irfan A Dhalla; Timo Krings; Leanne K Casaubon; Cheemun Lum; Nancy Sikich; Aditya Bharatha; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Grant Stotts; Gustavo Saposnik; Christina O'Callaghan; Linda Kelloway; Michael D Hill Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2016-06-16
Authors: Floris A J Geessinck; Rick G Pleijhuis; Rob J Mentink; Job van der Palen; Hendrik Koffijberg Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Abdullah Pandor; Daniel Horner; Sarah Davis; Steve Goodacre; John W Stevens; Mark Clowes; Beverley J Hunt; Tim Nokes; Jonathan Keenan; Kerstin de Wit Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Joseph R Schneider; Irene B Helenowski; Cheryl R Jackson; Michael J Verta; Kimberly C Zamor; Nilesh H Patel; Stanley Kim; Andrew W Hoel Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: René Handschu; Mateusz Scibor; Martin Nückel; Dirk Asshoff; Barbara Willaczek; Frank Erbguth; Stefan Schwab; Frank Daumann Journal: J Neurol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 4.849