Search

Objectives: In China, multiple approaches to calculating EQ-5D utilities are available, including the two EQ-5D-3L (3L2014 and 3L2018) scoring functions, the EQ-5D-5L (5L) scoring function, and the crosswalk function linking the 3L utilities and 5L health states. The study compared utilities derived from them in terms of agreement and discriminative power; and assessed whether the use of different approaches may affect QALY estimation in Chinese type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. Methods: Cross-sectional data of 289 T2D patients who self-completed both the 5L and 3L questions were used. Agreement were examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots. The ability of the EQ-5D utilities in differentiating the patients with and without clinical conditions was evaluated using F-statistics. Their influence on QALY estimation was assessed adopting mean absolute difference (MAD) in utility values between the patients. Results: The ICC values were 0.881 (3L2014-3L2018), 0.958 (5L-c5L2014), and 0.806 (5L-c5L2018). The two 3L utilities and the three 5L utilities had poor agreement at the lower end of utility scale according to Bland–Altman plots. The 3L2018 utilities had lower F-statistics compared to the 3L2014 utilities; the two c5L utilities had larger or similar F-statistics compared to the 5L utilities. The mean MADs were 0.138 (5L), 0.116 (3L2014), 0.115 (c5L2014), 0.055 (c5L2018), and 0.055 (3L2018). Conclusion: The 3L2014 utilities is more discriminative than the 3L2018 utilities; and the two c5L utilities have no worse discriminative power compared with the 5L utilities. The choice of the approach to calculating the EQ-5D utilities is likely to affect QALY estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the discriminative power of the index scores of EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EQ-5D-3L (3L) in diabetes patients in China. Methods: A consecutive sample of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the clinics self-completed the two versions of EQ-5D. The 3L index score was obtained from the Chinese 3L value set; the 5L index score was predicted from the 3L index score using an interim scoring. Relative efficiency (RE) of the 5L and 3L index scores was calculated to compare their ability in differentiating between T2DM patients with and without one of ten clinical conditions. The efficiency of the 5L and 3L health state classification systems was assessed using the Shannon index ( H′) and in terms of ceiling effects. Results: A total of 289 T2DM patients participated in this study. The 5L score was systematically lower than the 3L score for T2DM patients with and without a condition (range −0.36 to −0.06). The 5L score exhibited higher discriminative power in nine of ten conditions, with the mean RE value being 1.92. 5L had higher H′ values than 3L in all the five EQ-5D dimensions: mobility (1.14 vs. 0.70), self-care (0.44 vs. 0.33), usual activities (0.72 vs. 0.47), pain/discomfort (1.58 vs. 1.10), and anxiety/depression (1.03 vs. 0.67). The overall ceiling effects decreased from 56.7 % (3L) to 36.7 % (5L). Conclusion: The 5L index score is more discriminative than the 3L index score in T2DM patients and therefore is preferable for use in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]