Literature DB >> 30661633

Cost-Utility Analysis Using EQ-5D-5L Data: Does How the Utilities Are Derived Matter?

Fan Yang1, Nancy Devlin2, Nan Luo3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore how the use of EQ-5D-5L value set and crosswalk from EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L (and use of 3L value set) would affect cost-effectiveness analysis results for England and six other countries (Canada, the Netherlands, China, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore).
METHODS: Individual-level utilities derived from primary 5L data using both value set (5L) and crosswalk (c5L) approaches were applied to three Markov models assessing the cost-effectiveness of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients to estimate incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The mathematic functions between incremental QALY and utility were derived.
RESULTS: 5L- and c5L-based incremental QALYs were similar in the model for non-diabetic patients (range: 1.910-2.149, 1.922-2.121). 5L tends to generate more incremental QALYs than c5L in the model for diabetic patients (range: 1.454-1.633, 1.365-1.568) but fewer incremental QALYs in the model for all ESRD patients (range: 0.290-0.480, 0.315-0.493). In all models, 5L (c5L) generated more incremental QALYs when Chinese (South Korean) value sets were used. The largest and smallest differences in 5L- and c5L-based incremental QALYs were observed when Chinese and Dutch value sets were used. Incremental QALYs was a positive linear function of both utility of PD and difference in utilities of HD and PD.
CONCLUSIONS: The value set and crosswalk approaches may not be used interchangeably in economic evaluation when EQ-5D-5L data are used to estimate utilities. Results of cost-effectiveness analysis using Markov models may be affected by both absolute utilities and their differences.
Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EQ-5D-3L; EQ-5D-5L; cost-utility analysis; crosswalk; value set

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30661633     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  9 in total

1.  Mapping clinical outcomes to generic preference-based outcome measures: development and comparison of methods.

Authors:  Mónica Hernández Alava; Allan Wailoo; Stephen Pudney; Laura Gray; Andrea Manca
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Health-related quality of life and health utilities in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: the impact of related comorbidities/complications.

Authors:  John Yfantopoulos; Athanasios Chantzaras
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2020-03-03

3.  Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China.

Authors:  Jie Jiang; Yanming Hong; Tiantian Zhang; Zhihao Yang; Tengfei Lin; Zhuoru Liang; Peiyao Lu; Lishun Liu; Binyan Wang; Yongmei Xu; Nan Luo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  Using Patient-Reported Outcomes toAssess Healthcare Quality: Toward Better Measurement of Patient-Centered Care in Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors:  Raul Angel Garcia; John A Spertus
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2021-04-05

5.  Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments.

Authors:  Fan Yang; Nancy Devlin; Nan Luo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-06-14

6.  The impact of pain on the quality of life of patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis: a multicenter cross-sectional study from Palestine.

Authors:  Aseel F Samoudi; Maha K Marzouq; Ahmad M Samara; Sa'ed H Zyoud; Samah W Al-Jabi
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 3.186

7.  Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  You-Shan Feng; Thomas Kohlmann; Mathieu F Janssen; Ines Buchholz
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Raul Angel Garcia; Mary C Benton; John A Spertus
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 3.955

9.  US population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples.

Authors:  Ruixuan Jiang; M F Bas Janssen; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 4.147

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.