Search

Background: The Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQOL) questionnaire is a unidimensional, disease-specific measure developed in the UK and the Netherlands. This study describes its adaptation into other languages. Methods: The UK English ASQOL was translated into US English; Canadian French and English; French; German; Italian; Spanish; and Swedish (dual-panel methods). Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with AS patients. Psychometric/scaling properties were assessed using data from two Phase III studies of adalimumab. Baseline and Week-2 data were used to assess testretest reliability. Validity was determined by correlation of ASQOL with SF-36 and BASFI and by discriminative ability of ASQOL based on disease severity. Item response theory (Rasch model) was used to test ASQOL's scaling properties. Results: Cognitive debriefing showed the new ASQOL versions to be clear, relevant and comprehensive. Sample sizes varied, but were sufficient for: psychometric/scaling assessment for US English and Canadian English; psychometric but not scaling analyses for German; and preliminary evidence of these properties for the remaining languages. Test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were high: US English (0.85, 0.85), Canadian English (0.87, 0.86), and German (0.77, 0.79). Correlations of ASQOL with SF-36 and BASFI for US English, Canadian English, and German measures were moderate, but ASQOL discriminated between patients based on perceived disease severities (p < 0.01). Results were comparable for the other languages. US English and Canadian English exhibited fit to the Rasch model (non-significant p-values: 0.54, 0.68), confirming unidimensionality. Conclusion: The ASQOL was successfully translated into all eight languages. Psychometric properties were excellent for US English, Canadian English, and German, and extremely promising for the other languages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To estimate the impact of using EQ5D-5L (5L) compared with EQ5D-3L (3L) in cost-effectiveness analyses in 6 countries with 3L and 5L values: Germany, Japan, Korea, The Netherlands, China, and Spain.Methods: Eight cost-effectiveness analyses based on clinical studies with 3L provided 11 pairwise comparisons. We estimated cost-effectiveness by applying the appropriate country values for 3L to observed responses. We re-estimated cost-effectiveness for each country by predicting the 5L tariff score for each respondent, for each country, using a previously published mapping method. We compared results in terms of impact on estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain and cost-effectiveness ratios.Results: For most countries the impact of moving from 3L to 5L is to lower the incremental QALY gain in the majority of comparisons. The only exception to this was Japan, where 4 out of 11 cases (37%) saw lower QALYs gained when using 5L. The mean and median reductions in health gain, in those case studies where 5L does lead to lower health gain, are largest in The Netherlands (84% mean reduction, 41% median reduction), Germany (68% and 27%), and Spain (30% and 31%). For most countries, those studies where 5L leads to lower health gain see larger reductions than the gains in studies showing the opposite tendency.Conclusions: Overall, 3L and 5L are not interchangeable in these countries. Differences between results are large, but the direction of change can be unpredictable. These findings should prompt further investigation into the reasons for differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]