Fanni Rencz1,2, Petra Baji1, László Gulácsi1, Sarolta Kárpáti3, Márta Péntek1, Adrienn Katalin Poór3, Valentin Brodszky4. 1. Department of Health Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8., Budapest, 1093, Hungary. 2. Semmelweis University Doctoral School of Clinical Medicine, Üllői út 26., Budapest, 1085, Hungary. 3. Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Dermatooncology, Semmelweis University, Mária u. 41., Budapest, 1085, Hungary. 4. Department of Health Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8., Budapest, 1093, Hungary. valentin.brodszky@uni-corvinus.hu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In many jurisdictions, deterioration in quality of life assessed with Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is used for medical and reimbursement decisions in various dermatological conditions such as psoriasis. However, utility values for health states defined by the DLQI have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, we aim to estimate utilities for different health states described by the ten items of the DLQI. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in a convenience sample of the general population. Seven DLQI health states with total scores of 6, 11 and 16 (3-3 and 1 states, respectively) were developed. All of them were different from each other in the number of affected items and severity levels of impairment. The 10-year time trade-off method was used to value health states. RESULTS: Mean utilities elicited by the respondents (n = 308) for the three 6-, three 11- and one 16-point DLQI health states were 0.62-0.75, 0.59-0.66, and 0.56, respectively. In half of the six pairwise comparisons, where health states with the same total DLQI score were compared, significant difference between utilities was found. In eight out of the 15 comparisons between health states with different DLQI scores, utilities were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Utility values for health states with identical DLQI total score may significantly vary. This result might be generalisable to various patient populations, in which the DLQI is used; nevertheless, further research is needed. The discrepancies between DLQI scores and utilities might have an impact on medical and reimbursement decisions as they make the utility gain from treatment uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: In many jurisdictions, deterioration in quality of life assessed with Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is used for medical and reimbursement decisions in various dermatological conditions such as psoriasis. However, utility values for health states defined by the DLQI have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, we aim to estimate utilities for different health states described by the ten items of the DLQI. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed in a convenience sample of the general population. Seven DLQI health states with total scores of 6, 11 and 16 (3-3 and 1 states, respectively) were developed. All of them were different from each other in the number of affected items and severity levels of impairment. The 10-year time trade-off method was used to value health states. RESULTS: Mean utilities elicited by the respondents (n = 308) for the three 6-, three 11- and one 16-point DLQI health states were 0.62-0.75, 0.59-0.66, and 0.56, respectively. In half of the six pairwise comparisons, where health states with the same total DLQI score were compared, significant difference between utilities was found. In eight out of the 15 comparisons between health states with different DLQI scores, utilities were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Utility values for health states with identical DLQI total score may significantly vary. This result might be generalisable to various patient populations, in which the DLQI is used; nevertheless, further research is needed. The discrepancies between DLQI scores and utilities might have an impact on medical and reimbursement decisions as they make the utility gain from treatment uncertain.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dermatology Life Quality Index; Health-related quality of life; Practice guidelines; Reimbursement; Time trade-off; Utility
Authors: Donna Rowen; Brendan Mulhern; Sube Banerjee; Ben van Hout; Tracey A Young; Martin Knapp; Sarah C Smith; Donna L Lamping; John E Brazier Journal: Value Health Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: F Rencz; L Kemény; J Z Gajdácsi; W Owczarek; P Arenberger; G S Tiplica; A Stanimirović; M Niewada; G Petrova; L T Marinov; J Kazandhieva; M Péntek; V Brodszky; L Gulácsi Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Tamar Nijsten; David M Meads; John de Korte; Francesca Sampogna; Joel M Gelfand; Katia Ongenae; Andrea W Evers; Matthias Augustin Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Adrienn Katalin Poór; Fanni Rencz; Valentin Brodszky; László Gulácsi; Zsuzsanna Beretzky; Bernadett Hidvégi; Péter Holló; Sarolta Kárpáti; Márta Péntek Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.147