Advertisement

A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery

  • Mihir Gandhi
  • Marcus Ang
  • Kelvin Teo
  • Chee Wai Wong
  • Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei
  • Rachel Lee-Yin Tan
  • Mathieu F. Janssen
  • Nan LuoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

(1) To evaluate the effect of adding a vision dimension (‘bolt-on’) to the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) on their responsiveness, and (2) to compare the responsiveness of a vision ‘bolt-on’ EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L + V) with SF-6D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) to the benefit of cataract surgery.

Methods

Sixty-three patients were assessed before and after their cataract surgery using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI3, as well as a 3-level and a 5-level vision dimension. Preference-based indices were calculated using available value sets for EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-3L + V, EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, and HUI3, and non-preference-based indices were calculated using the sum-score method for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-5L + V (vision bolt-on EQ-5D-5L). Responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean (SRM) and F-statistic.

Results

Among preference-based indices, mean changes from pre to post-surgery in EQ-5D-3L + V and EQ-5D-3L indices were 0.031 and 0.018, respectively. The mean changes for EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D and HUI3 indices were 0.020, 0.012 and 0.105, respectively. The SRM (F-statistic) for EQ-5D-3L + V and EQ-5D-3L indices were 0.458 (13.2) and 0.098 (0.6), respectively. The responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L + V was better than EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D; the responsiveness of HUI3 was better than all other measures. Using non-preference-based indices, mean change for EQ-5D-5L + V and EQ-5D-5L were 0.067 and 0.017, respectively. The corresponding SRM (F-statistic) were 0.709 (31.7) and 0.295 (5.4).

Conclusions

Preliminary evidence from our study suggests that a vision ‘bolt-on’ may increase the responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L to change in health outcomes experienced by patients undergoing cataract surgery. In absence of the preference-based vision bolt-on EQ-5D-5L index, HUI3 was the most responsive measure.

Keywords

EQ-5D Responsiveness Vision Bolt-on Cataract 

JEL Classification

I10 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the EuroQol Research Foundation for funding this study and all patients of this study for their participation.

Author contributions

MA, MFJ, and NL jointly conceived the study. KT, CWW, and YCHW contributed in the study design and patient recruitment. RLYT contributed in the data collection form design, patient recruitment and data management. MG analyzed the data and drafted the first version of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The study had financial support from the EuroQol Research Foundation (EQ Project 2016310), The Netherlands; MFJ is a member of the scientific team of the EuroQol Business Office and both MFJ and NL are members of the EuroQol Group. The EuroQol Research Foundation has had no other involvement in the running of the study or the writing of the manuscript. The views expressed by the authors in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Group. No other relationship or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

The study was approved by the SingHealth Centralized Institutional Review Board (CIRB Ref: 2016/2649). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10198_2019_1156_MOESM1_ESM.docx (59 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 59 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Alava, M.H., Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Tosh, J., Tsuchiya, A., Evans, P.: Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol. Assess. 18(9), 1–224 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Janssen, M., Pickard, A.S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., Swinburn, P., Busschbach, J.: Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual. Life Res. 22(7), 1717–1727 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., Badia, X.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agborsangaya, C.B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., Johnson, J.A.: Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12(1), 74 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/1-foreword (2013). Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  6. 6.
    Luo, N., Wang, X., Ang, M., Finkelstein, E.A., Aung, T., Wong, T.-Y., Lamoureux, E.: A vision, “Bolt-On” item could increase the discriminatory power of the EQ-5D index score. Value Health 18(8), 1037–1042 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., Mulhern, B., Hernández Alava, M., Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Tosh, J., Tsuchiya, A., Evans, P., Devianee Keetharuth, A., Brazier, J.: Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 18(9), 1–224 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geraerds, A.J.L.M., Bonsel, G.J., Janssen, M.F., de Jongh, M.A., Spronk, I., Polinder, S., Haagsma, J.A.: The added value of the EQ-5D with a cognition dimension in injury patients with and without traumatic brain injury. Qual. Life Res. (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02144-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swinburn, P., Lloyd, A., Boye, K.S., Edson-Heredia, E., Bowman, L., Janssen, B.: Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value Health 16(8), 1156–1162 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoogendoorn, M., Boland, M.R., Goossens, L.M., Oppe, M., Stolk, E.A., Rutten van-Molken, M.: Development of an Eq-5d respiratory bolt-on. Value Health 18(7), 714 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, Y., Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Young, T., Longworth, L.: An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health 18(1), 52–60 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang, Y., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A.: Effect of adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D descriptive system: a “bolt-on” experiment. Med. Decis. Mak 34(1), 42–53 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13480428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tosh, J., Brazier, J., Evans, P., Longworth, L.: A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health 15(1), 118–127 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gandhi, M., Ang, M., Teo, K., Wong, C.W., Wei, Y.C., Tan, R.L., Janssen, M.F., Luo, N.: EQ-5D-5L is more responsive than EQ-5D-3L to treatment benefit of cataract surgery. Patient (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-00354-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brooks, R.: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37(1), 53–72 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolan, P.: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med. Care 35(11), 1095–1108 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Luo, N.: EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics 34(10), 993–1004 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    NICE: Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L valuation set for England (updated November 2018). https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l (2018). 3 Jun 2019
  19. 19.
    Van Hout, B., Janssen, M., Feng, Y.-S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., Pickard, A.S.: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15(5), 708–715 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Devlin, N.J., Shah, K.K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., Hout, B.: Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 27(1), 7–22 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21(2), 271–292 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poder, T.G., Fauteux, V., He, J., Brazier, J.E.: Consistency between three different ways of administering the short form 6 dimension version 2. Value Health. 22(7), 837–842 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.12.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Horsman, J., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G.: The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 1(1), 54 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G., Goldsmith, C., DePauw, S., Zhu, Z., Denton, M., Boyle, M.: Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report. In: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA). McMaster University, Hamilton (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steinberg, E.P., Tielsch, J.M., Schein, O.D., Javitt, J.C., Sharkey, P., Cassard, S.D., Legro, M.W., Diener-West, M., Bass, E.B., Damiano, A.M.: The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch. Ophthalmol. 112(5), 630–638 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lamoureux, E.L., Pesudovs, K., Thumboo, J., Saw, S.-M., Wong, T.Y.: An evaluation of the reliability and validity of the visual functioning questionnaire (VF-11) using Rasch analysis in an Asian population. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 50(6), 2607–2613 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gandhi, M., Thumboo, J., Wee, H.-L., Luo, N., Cheung, Y.-B.: How is the most severe health state being valued by the general population? Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12(1), 1 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deyo, R.A., Diehr, P., Patrick, D.L.: Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control. Clin. Trials 12(4), S142–S158 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. In. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mooney CZ, Duval RD. Bootstrapping: a nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Sage university papers series. Quantitative applications in the social sciences, No. 95. Sage Publications, Inc. 1993.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morimoto, T., Fukui, T.: Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J. Epidemiol. 12(2), 160–178 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bilbao, A., Quintana, J.M., Escobar, A., García, S., Andradas, E., Baré, M., Elizalde, B., Group, I.-C.: Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the VF-14 index, SF-36, and visual acuity in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 116(3), 418–424.e411 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Polack, S., Eusebio, C., Mathenge, W., Wadud, Z., Mamunur, A., Fletcher, A., Foster, A., Kuper, H.: The impact of cataract surgery on health related quality of life in Kenya, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 17(6), 387–399 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McWilliams, L.A., Goodwin, R.D., Cox, B.J.: Depression and anxiety associated with three pain conditions: results from a nationally representative sample. Pain 111(1–2), 77–83 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiostatisticsSingapore Clinical Research InstituteSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical SchoolSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Tampere Center for Child Health Research, Tampere UniversityTampereFinland
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologySingapore National Eye CentreSingaporeSingapore
  5. 5.Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences DepartmentDuke-NUS Medical SchoolSingaporeSingapore
  6. 6.Saw Swee Hock School of Public HealthNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  7. 7.Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of PsychiatryErasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations