Dataset Information

Quality of life assessment in interstitial lung diseases:a comparison of the disease-specific K-BILD with the generic EQ-5D-5L.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILD) have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL). Little is known about the applicability of the disease-specific King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire (K-BILD) and the generic EQ-5D-5L in a German setting. METHODS:We assessed disease-specific (K-BILD) and generic HRQL (EQ-5D experience based value set (EBVS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) in 229 patients with different ILD subtypes in a longitudinal observational study (HILDA). Additionally, we assessed the correlation of the HRQL measures with lung function and comorbidities. In a linear regression model, we investigated predictors (including age, sex, ILD subtype, FVC percentage of predicted value (FVC%pred), DLCO percentage of predicted value, and comorbidities). RESULTS:Among the 229 patients mean age was 63.2 (Standard deviation (SD): 12.9), 67.3% male, 24.0% had idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and 22.3% sarcoidosis. Means scores were as follows for EQ-5D EBVS 0.66(SD 0.17), VAS 61.4 (SD 19.1) and K-BILD Total 53.6 (SD 13.8). K-BILD had good construct validity (high correlation with EQ-5D EBVS (0.71)) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.89). Moreover, all HRQL measures were highly accepted by patients including low missing items and there were no ceiling or floor effects. A higher FVC % pred was associated with higher HRQL in all measures meanwhile comorbidities had a negative influence on HRQL. CONCLUSIONS:K-BILD and EQ-5D had similar HRQL trends and were associated similarly to the same disease-related factors in Germany. Our data supports the use of K-BILD in clinical practice in Germany, since it captures disease specific effects of ILD. Additionally, the use of the EQ-5D-5L could provide comparison to different disease areas and give an overview about the position of ILD patients in comparison to general population.

SUBMITTER: Szentes BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5970441 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of life assessment in interstitial lung diseases:a comparison of the disease-specific K-BILD with the generic EQ-5D-5L.

Szentes Boglárka Lilla BL Kreuter Michael M Bahmer Thomas T Birring Surinder S SS Claussen Martin M Waelscher Julia J Leidl Reiner R Schwarzkopf Larissa L

Respiratory research 20180525 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILD) have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL). Little is known about the applicability of the disease-specific King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire (K-BILD) and the generic EQ-5D-5L in a German setting.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed disease-specific (K-BILD) and generic HRQL (EQ-5D experience based value set (EBVS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) in 229 patients with different ILD subtypes in a longitudinal obser ...[more]

PMID: 29801506

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe EQ-5D is a generic health survey that can be used to compare improvement across different interventions, measure changes in health-related quality of life over time, or to explore cost-effectiveness among treatments, hospitals, or providers. The original EQ-5D survey has three response options for each of five health dimensions; however, with so few response options, ceiling and floor effects are problematic in some populations. A new version, called the EQ-5D-5L, was developed, which gives respondents five answer options (the "5L" refers to five response levels, which is in contrast to the original survey's three levels). However, the validity of this version has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).Questions/purposesThe purposes of this study were (1) to characterize the redistribution of responses using the new version; (2) to describe the ceiling and floor effects in the current three-level version and identify whether the new EQ-5D-5L survey diminished these effects; and (3) to understand the convergent validity of the new version with the old and the EQ visual analog scale.MethodsBoth versions of the survey were administered either preoperatively or 1 to 6 years after THA, allowing at least 2 weeks between administrations. Responses to the two versions were compared to determine response redistribution properties, ceiling and floor effects, and convergent validity. Sample sizes were determined so that the study would have 90% power to detect a Spearman correlation over 0.7 when comparing the responses of the three-level survey with the five-level survey and allowing for a rate of 25% loss to followup.ResultsMost patients before surgery used the new responses in the majority of dimensions, whereas the patients taking the test after surgery used the new responses predominantly for the pain dimension. The five-level diminished ceiling effects in both groups by up to 30% and diminished floor effects in the pain dimension for patients taking the assessment before surgery by 14%, which was the only dimension in either patient group that had high rates of floor effects. The correlation between the surveys' visual analog scale and response patterns was not different for the two versions of the survey in these populations.ConclusionsThe EQ-5D five-level survey appears able to discriminate new health states indistinguishable in the original, which may allow more sensitive measurements of change in patients undergoing THA. The five-level survey should be considered for implementation in local and national registry monitoring of health-related quality of life in patients undergoing THA.

Project description:Background: The EQ-5D-5L is a generic preference-based questionnaire developed by the EuroQol Group to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 2005. Since its development, it has been increasingly applied in populations with various diseases and has been found to have good reliability and sensitivity. This study aimed to summarize the health utility elicited from EQ-5D-5L for patients with different diseases in cross-sectional studies worldwide. Methods: Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2012, to October 31, 2019. Cross-sectional studies reporting utility values measured with the EQ-5D-5L in patients with any specific disease were eligible. The language was limited to English. Reference lists of the retrieved studies were manually searched to identify more studies that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed with the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist. In addition, meta-analyses were performed for utility values of any specific disease reported in three or more studies. Results: In total, 9,400 records were identified, and 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. In the included studies, 50 different diseases and 98,085 patients were analyzed. Thirty-five studies involving seven different diseases were included in meta-analyses. The health utility ranged from 0.31 to 0.99 for diabetes mellitus [meta-analysis random-effect model (REM): 0.83, (95% CI = 0.77-0.90); fixed-effect model (FEM): 0.93 (95% CI = 0.93-0.93)]; from 0.62 to 0.90 for neoplasms [REM: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.68-0.82); FEM: 0.80 (95% CI = 0.78-0.81)]; from 0.56 to 0.85 for cardiovascular disease [REM: 0.77 (95% CI = 0.75-0.79); FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75-0.76)]; from 0.31 to 0.78 for multiple sclerosis [REM: 0.56 (95% CI = 0.47-0.66); FEM: 0.67 (95% CI = 0.66-0.68)]; from 0.68 to 0.79 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [REM: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.71-0.80); FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75-0.77)] from 0.65 to 0.90 for HIV infection [REM: 0.84 (95% CI = 0.80-0.88); FEM: 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80-0.82)]; from 0.37 to 0.89 for chronic kidney disease [REM: 0.70 (95% CI = 0.48-0.92; FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.74-0.78)]. Conclusions: EQ-5D-5L is one of the most widely used preference-based measures of HRQoL in patients with different diseases worldwide. The variation of utility values for the same disease was influenced by the characteristics of patients, the living environment, and the EQ-5D-5L value set. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42020158694.

Project description:ObjectivesThe EQ-5D-5L and its value sets are widely used internationally. However, in the US and elsewhere, there is growing use of PROMIS, which has a value set (PROPr) based on the stated preferences of the US population. This paper aims to compare the characteristics of EQ-5D-5L and PROPr value sets and to highlight potential implications for users.MethodsUS, Australian and English value sets were used for EQ-5D-5L. PROPr utilities were calculated based on PROMIS-29 + 2. We examined, in each case, (i) the characteristics (e.g. range of values, number of unique values) and distribution of all possible 'theoretical' utilities; (ii) dimension/domain importance ranking by the utility of corner states (i.e. health states with the worst level in one domain and the best in all others); (iii) comparisons of utilities for health states hypothesised to be comparable in terms of severity across EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and PROMIS-29 + 2 domain scores; (iv) the changes in values of adjacent states (i.e. a one-level change in one dimension for EQ-5D-5L and a four-point change in raw scores for PROMIS-29 + 2, with the other dimensions held constant) for dimensions hypothesised to overlap conceptually or be correlated between the two instruments.ResultsEQ-5D-5L and PROPr utilities differ systematically. First, the US EQ-5D-5L utilities range from - 0.573 to 1, whereas PROPr values for PROMIS-29 + 2 range from - 0.022 to 0.954. Second, in the US (and English) EQ-5D-5L value sets, pain is the most important dimension whereas in PROPr pain is one of the least important (apart from sleep disturbance). Third, classified based on severity across EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and PROMIS-29 + 2 domain scores, PROPr has substantially lower values than EQ-5D-5L values for comparable 'mild' health states, but higher values for more 'severe' health states. Last, when one dimension is considered across its best to worst levels and all other dimensions are held constant at their best or moderate level, in EQ-5D-5L value sets, the greatest changes in utility occur between levels 3 and 4 (moderate and severe) problems; in PROPr that occurred between the most severe states and their descriptively adjacent health states.ConclusionThere are very considerable differences between US EQ-5D-5L and PROPr utilities, despite both in principle representing utility on the same scale anchored at 0 and 1 and both representing the preferences of the US general public. It is important for decision makers and clinical triallists to be aware of these differences. Further work is needed to assess the impact of these differences in value sets using population and patient data, and in longitudinal settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe EQ-5D has been frequently used in national health surveys. This study is a head-to-head comparison to assess how expanding the number of levels from three (EQ-5D-3L) to five in the new EQ-5D-5L version has improved its distribution, discriminatory power, and validity in the general population.MethodsA representative sample (N = 7554) from the Catalan Health Interview Survey 2011-2012, aged ≥18, answered both EQ-5D versions, and we evaluated the response redistribution and inconsistencies between them. To assess validity of this redistribution, we calculated the mean of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which measures perceived health. The discriminatory power was examined with Shannon Indices, calculated for each dimension separately. Spanish preference value sets were applied to obtain utility indices, examining their distribution with statistics of central tendency and dispersion. We estimated the proportion of individuals reporting the best health state in EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L within groups of specific chronic conditions and their VAS mean.ResultsA very small reduction in the percentage of individuals with the best health state was observed, from 61.8% in EQ-5D-3L to 60.8% in EQ-5D-5L. In contrast, a large proportion of individuals reporting extreme problems in the 3 L version moved to severe problems (level 4) in the 5 L version, particularly for pain/discomfort (75.5%) and anxiety/depression (66.4%). The average proportion of inconsistencies was 0.9%. The pattern of the perceived health VAS mean confirmed the hypothesis established a priori, supporting the validity of the observed redistribution. Shannon index showed that absolute informativity was higher in the 5 L version for all dimensions. The means (SD) of the Spanish EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L indices were 0.87 (0.25) and 0.89 (0.22). The proportion of individuals with the best health state within each specific chronic condition was very similar, regardless of the EQ-5D version (≤ 30% in half of the 28 chronic conditions).ConclusionAlthough the proportion of individuals with the best possible health state is still very high, our findings support that the increase of levels provided by the EQ-5D-5L contributed to the validity and discriminatory power of this new version to measure health in general population, as in the national health surveys.

Dataset Information

Quality of life assessment in interstitial lung diseases:a comparison of the disease-specific K-BILD with the generic EQ-5D-5L.

Publications

Quality of life assessment in interstitial lung diseases:a comparison of the disease-specific K-BILD with the generic EQ-5D-5L.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets