Advertisement

Mapping Quality of Life (EQ-5D) from DAPsA, Clinical DAPsA and HAQ in Psoriatic Arthritis

  • Tomas Mlcoch
  • Jan Tuzil
  • Liliana Sedova
  • Jiri Stolfa
  • Monika Urbanova
  • David Suchy
  • Andrea Smrzova
  • Jitka Jircikova
  • Tereza Hrnciarova
  • Karel Pavelka
  • Tomas Dolezal
Original Research Article
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Clinical trials and observational studies lacking measures of health-related quality of life (QoL) are often inapplicable when conducting cost-effectiveness analyses using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The only solution is to map QoL ex post from additionally collected clinical outcomes and generic QoL instruments. Nonetheless, mapping studies are absent in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

In this 2-year, prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study of PsA patients, EQ-5D and key clinical parameters such as Disease Activity in PsA (DAPsA), clinical DAPsA (cDAPsA; DAPsA without C-reactive protein [CRP]), and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ) were collected. We employed a linear mixed-effect regression model (ME) of the longitudinal dataset to explore the best predictors of QoL.

Results

A total of 228 patients were followed over 873 appointments/observations. DAPsA, cDAPsA and HAQ were stable and highly significant predictors of EQ-5D utilities in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. The best prediction was provided using a linear ME with HAQ and cDAPsA or DAPsA. A HAQ increase of 1 point represented a decrease in EQ-5D by −0.204 or −0.203 (p < 0.0001); a one-point increase in cDAPsA or DAPsA dropped EQ-5D equally by −0.005 (p < 0.0001). The ME revealed steeper and more accurate association compared with cross-sectional regressions or non-linear models/transformations.

Conclusions

This is the first mapping study conducted in PsA and we hope that our study will encourage further mapping studies in PsA. The results showed that in cases where CRP is absent, cDAPsA provides similar results to DAPsA in predicting QoL.

Notes

Acknowledgements

L. Sedova, J. Stolfa, M. Urbanova and K. Pavelka were supported by a general grant from the Czech Ministry of Health IGA MZ CZ: No. 000 000 23, 728. K. Pavelka received honoraria for lectures and consultations from AbbVie, BMS, UCB, MSD, Amgen, Egis, Pfizer, and Roche. The authors acknowledge careful proofreading and insightful suggestions from Klara Lamblova MSc. (iHETA) and excellent English proofreading by Thomas O. Secrest.

Disclosure

Tomas Dolezal is owner of iHETA and also consultancy company Value Outcomes. Tomas Mlcoch, Jan Tuzil, Jitka Jircikova and Tereza Hrnciarova work for both iHETA and Value Outcomes. TD and TM work mainly as health economists. Their goal is to improve the healthcare system in the Czech Republic. JJ and TH design clinical trials and work as statisticians and data analysts. JT specialises in medical data interpretation in clinical trials. Liliana Sedova, Jiri Stolfa, David Suchy and Andrea Smrzova work as rheumatologists in respective specialised rheumatology clinics in which highly specialised medical technologies are prescribed (such as new biological treatment). Karel Pavelka is a director of the Institute of Rheumatology. None of these activities influenced the content or processing of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

TD, LS, JS and KP designed the research. LS, JS, MU, DS, AS and KP collected the data in clinical practice. TM, JT and TD wrote the manuscript and TM had primary responsibility for final content. TM, JT, JJ and TH prepared and analysed the data. JT performed statistical analysis. LS, JS and TH conducted repeated and throughout revisions of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

40271_2017_285_MOESM1_ESM.docx (123 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 123 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gossec L, Smolen JS, Ramiro S, Wit M de, Cutolo M, Dougados M, et al. European league against rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2015 Dec 7 (Annrheumdis-2015-208337).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu J-T, Yeh H-M, Liu S-Y, Chen K-T. Psoriatic arthritis: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. World J Orthop. 2014;5(4):537–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ogdie A, Weiss P. The epidemiology of psoriatic arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2015;41(4):545–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergman M, Lundholm A. Mitigation of disease- and treatment-related risks in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Therapy. 2017;19:63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cortesi PA, Scalone L, D’Angiolella L, Belisari A, Fusco F, Olivieri I, et al. Systematic literature review on economic implications and pharmacoeconomic issues of psoriatic arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2012;30(4 Suppl 73):S126–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDonough E, Ayearst R, Eder L, Chandran V, Rosen CF, Thavaneswaran A, et al. Depression and anxiety in psoriatic disease: prevalence and associated factors. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(5):887–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sarkar R, Chugh S, Bansal S. General measures and quality of life issues in psoriasis. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2016;7(6):481.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mlcoch T, Sedova L, Stolfa J, Urbanova M, Suchy D, Smrzova A, et al. Mapping the relationship between clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;24:1–9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruntorádová K, Klimeš J, Šedová L, Štolfa J, Doležal T, Petříková A. Work productivity and costs related to patients with ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis. Value in Health Reg Issues. 2014;4:100–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gudu T, Kiltz U, de Wit M, Kvien TK, Gossec L. Mapping the effect of psoriatic arthritis using the international classification of functioning, disability Health. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(2):193–200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dures E, Hewlett S, Lord J, Bowen C, McHugh N, Group F the PS, et al. Important treatment outcomes for patients with psoriatic arthritis: a multisite qualitative study. Patient. 2017;10(4):455–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klimeš J, Vocelka M, Šedová L, Doležal T, Mlčoch T, Petříková A, et al. Medical and Productivity costs of rheumatoid arthritis in The Czech Republic: cost-of-illness study based on disease severity. Value in Health Reg Issues. 2014;4:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kearns B, Ara R, Wailoo A, Manca A, Alava MH, Abrams K, et al. Good practice guidelines for the use of statistical regression models in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):643–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heintz E, Gerber-Grote A, Ghabri S, et al. Is there a European view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(1):59–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mlčoch T, Klimeš J, Fila L, Vávrová V, Skalická V, Turnovec M, et al. Cost-of-illness analysis and regression modeling in cystic fibrosis: a retrospective prevalence-based study. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18(1):73–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE. Variance components. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006. p. 501 (Wiley series in probability and statistics).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cnaan A, Laird NM, Slasor P. Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data. Stat Med. 1997;16(20):2349–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P. Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modelling. Stat Med. 1998;17(11):1261–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coates LC, FitzGerald O, Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Strand V, Goel N, et al. Development of a disease activity and responder index for psoriatic arthritis–report of the Psoriatic Arthritis Module at OMERACT 11. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(4):782–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Péntek M, Poór G, Wiland P, Olejárová M, Brzosko M, Codreanu C, et al. Biological therapy in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: issues in Central and Eastern European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(Suppl 1):S35–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wailoo AJ, Hernandez-Alava M, Manca A, Mejia A, Ray J, Crawford B, et al. Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non-preference-based outcome measures: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2017;20(1):18–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, Longworth L, Oppe M, Froud R, et al. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: explanation and elaboration. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(10):993–1011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wolowacz SE, Briggs A, Belozeroff V, Clarke P, Doward L, Goeree R, et al. Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2016;19(6):704–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taylor W, Gladman D, Helliwell P, Marchesoni A, Mease P, Mielants H, et al. Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(8):2665–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moll JMH, Wright V. Psoriatic arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheumatism. 1973;3(1):55–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aletaha D, Funovits J, Schoels M, Kavanaugh A, Baker D, Smolen J. A simple additive disease activity index for psoriatic arthritis: first evaluations of clinical validity. In: Vol 58. Wiley-Blackwell commerce place, 350 main st, Malden 02148, MA USA; 2008:S201–S202.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smolen JS, Schoels M, Aletaha D. Disease activity and response assessment in psoriatic arthritis using the disease activity index for PSoriatic arthritis (DAPSA). A brief review. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015;33(5 Suppl 93):S48–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Štolfa J, Šedová L. A contribution to the development of a composite disease activity index for patients with psoriatic arthritis (DAPA). Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(Suppl3):700.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schoels MM, Aletaha D, Alasti F, Smolen JS. Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): defining remission and treatment success using the DAPSA score. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(5):811–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Langley RGB, Feldman SR, Nyirady J, van de Kerkhof P, Papavassilis C. The 5-point investigator’s global assessment (IGA) scale: a modified tool for evaluating plaque psoriasis severity in clinical trials. J Dermatol Treat. 2015;26(1):23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bruce B, Fries JF. The health assessment questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5 Suppl 39):S14–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide | Agota Szende | Springer, Berlin. http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402055102. [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 13].
  35. 35.
    ČFES. Doporučené postupy České farmakoekonomické společnosti (ČFES) pro zdravotně-ekonomická hodnocení v ČR, Czech Pharmacoeconomic Society. 2016.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    SUKL. Postup pro posuzování analýzy nákladové efektivity, State Institute for Drug Control. 2017.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham U-G, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin L-Å, et al. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):431–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(5):353–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Basu A, Manca A. Regression estimators for generic health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life years. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(1):56–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McCulloch CE, Neuhaus JM. Generalized linear mixed models. In: Armitage P, Colton T, editors. Encyclopedia of biostatistics. New York: Wiley; 2005.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    D’Angelo S, Tramontano G, Gilio M, Leccese P, Olivieri I. Review of the treatment of psoriatic arthritis with biological agents: choice of drug for initial therapy and switch therapy for non-responders. Open Access Rheumatol. 2017;9:21–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4(2):133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ustekinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis. |Guidance and guidelines| NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta340. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  44. 44.
    Apremilast for treating active psoriatic arthritis |Guidance and guidelines| NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta433. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  45. 45.
    Psoriatic arthritis—certolizumab pegol and secukinumab (after DMARDs) [ID579] | Guidance and guidelines | NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-tag521. Accessed 15 May 2017.
  46. 46.
    Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, Najafzadeh M, Wolfe F, Esdaile JM, et al. Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(6):616–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Corbacho MI, Dapueto JJ. Assessing the functional status and quality of life of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rev Bras Reumatol. 2010;50(1):31–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Malottki K, Barton P, Tsourapas A, Uthman AO, Liu Z, Routh K, et al. Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(14):1–278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ducournau P, Kielhorn A, Wintfeld N. Comparison of linear and non-linear utility mapping between HAQ and EQ-5D using pooled data from the tocilizumab trials OPTION and LITHE. Annu Meet Br Soc Rheumatol. 2009;2009:258.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Health Economics and Technology AssessmentPrague 2Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of RheumatologyPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Clinic of Rheumatology, 1st Faculty of MedicineCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Clinical Pharmacology, RheumatologyUniversity Hospital PlzenPlzenCzech Republic
  5. 5.Third Internal ClinicUniversity Hospital OlomoucOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations