Cargando…

Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate. OBJECTIVE: T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Hansoo, Cook, Greg, Goodall, Stephen, Liew, Danny
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33891268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8
_version_ 1783732985752715264
author Kim, Hansoo
Cook, Greg
Goodall, Stephen
Liew, Danny
author_facet Kim, Hansoo
Cook, Greg
Goodall, Stephen
Liew, Danny
author_sort Kim, Hansoo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure–Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. METHODS: Quality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures. RESULTS: Mean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson’s correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient < 0.90) at baseline. The model predicted slightly higher QALYs gained when using EQ-5D-3L over QLU-C10D-derived utilities (1.87 vs 1.74, respectively). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$30.5K when using EQ-5D-3L utilities, compared to US$32.7K when using QLU-C10D utilities. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the two sets of utilities were almost indistinguishable. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument in immunotherapy treated metastatic melanoma, and found no additional benefit for using the disease-specific QLU-C10D when using Australian weights.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8333246
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83332462021-08-20 Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis Kim, Hansoo Cook, Greg Goodall, Stephen Liew, Danny Pharmacoecon Open Original Research Article BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure–Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. METHODS: Quality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures. RESULTS: Mean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson’s correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient < 0.90) at baseline. The model predicted slightly higher QALYs gained when using EQ-5D-3L over QLU-C10D-derived utilities (1.87 vs 1.74, respectively). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$30.5K when using EQ-5D-3L utilities, compared to US$32.7K when using QLU-C10D utilities. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the two sets of utilities were almost indistinguishable. CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument in immunotherapy treated metastatic melanoma, and found no additional benefit for using the disease-specific QLU-C10D when using Australian weights. Springer International Publishing 2021-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8333246/ /pubmed/33891268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Kim, Hansoo
Cook, Greg
Goodall, Stephen
Liew, Danny
Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis
title Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis
title_full Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis
title_short Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis
title_sort comparison of eq-5d-3l with qlu-c10d in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysis
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333246/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33891268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8
work_keys_str_mv AT kimhansoo comparisonofeq5d3lwithqluc10dinmetastaticmelanomausingcostutilityanalysis
AT cookgreg comparisonofeq5d3lwithqluc10dinmetastaticmelanomausingcostutilityanalysis
AT goodallstephen comparisonofeq5d3lwithqluc10dinmetastaticmelanomausingcostutilityanalysis
AT liewdanny comparisonofeq5d3lwithqluc10dinmetastaticmelanomausingcostutilityanalysis