Dataset Information

Mapping From Visual Acuity to EQ-5D, EQ-5D With Vision Bolt-On, and VFQ-UI in Patients With Macular Edema in the LEAVO Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Mappings to convert clinical measures to preference-based measures of health such as the EQ-5D-3L are sometimes required in cost-utility analyses. We developed mappings to convert best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) to the EQ-5D-3L, the EQ-5D-3L with a vision bolt-on (EQ-5D V), and the Visual Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index (VFQ-UI) in patients with macular edema caused by central retinal vein occlusion.

Methods

We used data from Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in vein occlusion (LEAVO), which is a phase-3 randomized controlled trial comparing ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab in 463 patients with observations at 6 time points. We estimated adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models consisting of 1 to 4 distributions (components) using BCVA in each eye, age, and sex to predict utility within the components and BCVA as a determinant of component membership. We compared model fit using mean error, mean absolute error, root mean square error, Akaike information criteria, Bayesian information criteria, and visual inspection of mean predicted and observed utilities and cumulative distribution functions.

Results

Mean utility scores were 0.82 for the EQ-5D-3L, 0.79 for the EQ-5D V, and 0.88 for the VFQ-UI. The best-fitting models for the EQ-5D and EQ-5D V had 2 components (with means of approximately 0.44 and 0.85), and the best-fitting model for VFQ-UI had 3 components (with means of approximately 0.95, 0.74, and 0.90).

Conclusions

Models with multiple components better predict utility than those with single components. This article provides a valuable addition to the literature, in which previous mappings in visual acuity have been limited to linear regressions, resulting in unfounded assumptions about the distribution of the dependent variable.

SUBMITTER: Pennington BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7427317 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mapping From Visual Acuity to EQ-5D, EQ-5D With Vision Bolt-On, and VFQ-UI in Patients With Macular Edema in the LEAVO Trial.

Pennington Becky M BM Hernández-Alava Mónica M Hykin Philip P Sivaprasad Sobha S Flight Laura L Alshreef Abualbishr A Brazier John J

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 20200602 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>Mappings to convert clinical measures to preference-based measures of health such as the EQ-5D-3L are sometimes required in cost-utility analyses. We developed mappings to convert best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) to the EQ-5D-3L, the EQ-5D-3L with a vision bolt-on (EQ-5D V), and the Visual Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index (VFQ-UI) in patients with macular edema caused by central retinal vein occlusion.<h4>Methods</h4>We used data from Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in vein ...[more]

PMID: 32762995

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe EQ-5D is the most widely applied generic preference-based measure (GPBM) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Much concern has been raised that its descriptive system is lacking psycho-social dimensions. A recent paper in this journal provided theoretical support for four dimensions to fill this gap. The current paper aims to provide empirical support for these suggested bolt-on dimensions to the EQ-5D.MethodsWe use data from the comprehensive Multi-Instrument-Comparison (MIC) study. The four proposed bolt-on dimensions (Vitality, Sleep, Social Relationships, and Community Connectedness) were selected from the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. We investigate the relative importance of these four dimensions as compared to the five EQ-5D-5L dimensions on explaining HRQoL (measured by a visual analogue scale; N = 7846) or global life satisfaction (measured by the Satisfaction With Life Scale; N = 8005), using the Shorrocks-Shapely decomposition analysis. Robustness analyses on Vitality was conducted using data from the United States National Health Measurement Study (NHMS) (N = 3812).ResultsAll five EQ-5D-5L dimensions and four bolt-on dimensions significantly explained the variance of HRQoL. Among them, Vitality was found to be the most important dimension with regard to the HRQoL (relative contribution based on the Shorrocks-Shapely decomposition of R2: 23.0%), followed by Usual Activities (15.1%). Self-Care was the least important dimension (relative contribution: 5.4%). As a comparison, when explaining global life satisfaction, Social Relationships was the most important dimension (relative contribution: 24.0%), followed by Anxiety/Depression (23.2%), while Self-Care remained the least important (relative contribution: 1.6%). The importance of the Vitality dimension in explaining HRQoL was supported in the robustness analysis using the NHMS data (relative contribution: 23.7%).ConclusionsWe provide empirical support for complementing the current EQ-5D-5L descriptive system with a coherent set of four bolt-on dimensions that will fill its psycho-social gap. Such an extended health state classification system would in particular be relevant for programme evaluations within the expanding fields of mental health and community care.

Project description:Objective: This study examined the impact of adding two condition-specific bolt-on items to the EQ-5D-5L and assessed their psychometric properties in patients with hemophilia. Methods: The data were obtained from a nationwide cross-sectional online survey of patients with hemophilia in China. Self-reported and proxy-reported data were analyzed separately. Ceiling effect, informativity, and discriminatory power of the EQ-5D-5L with two bolt-on items, dignity (DG), and bleeding (BL), were examined. Spearman's rank correlation (rho) was used to assess the associations of the EQ-5D-5L and two bolt-on items with the Hemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL) and SF-12. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate the explained variance of the EQ-5D-5L and bolt-on items in predicting EQ-VAS scores. Results: A total of 895 patients and 222 caregivers completed the questionnaire. The ceiling effect decreased from 1.9 to 0.6% and 5.9 to 0.9% when using the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-5L with two bolt-on items among participants with both self- and proxy-completed questionnaires. Both DG and BL were strongly correlated with Haem-A-QoL sum score [rho: DG = 0.64 (patient) vs. 0.66(proxy); BL = 0.49 (patient) vs. 0.31 (proxy)], SF-12 mental component [rho: DG = -0.36 (patient) vs. -0.41 (proxy); BL = -0.53 (patient) vs. -0.57(proxy)], and SF-12 physical component [rho: DG = -0.61 (patient) vs. -0.61 (proxy); BL = -0.35 (patient) vs. -0.39 (proxy)]. Known-group comparisons confirmed that the two bolt-on items had satisfactory discriminatory power. Multiple regression analysis indicated that adding two bolt-on items significantly increased the ability to predict EQ-VAS scores. The adjusted R 2 increased by 8.2 and 8.8% for reports completed by the patients or patients' proxy respondents, respectively. Conclusion: Adding the DG and BL bolt-on items can increase performance on the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hemophilia. A future valuation study will be carried out.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare visual acuity (VA) scores after autorefraction vs manual refraction in eyes of patients with diabetes mellitus and a wide range of VAs.MethodsThe letter score from the Electronic Visual Acuity (EVA) test from the electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study was measured after autorefraction (AR-EVA score) and after manual refraction (MR-EVA score), which is the research protocol of the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Testing order was randomized, study participants and VA examiners were masked to refraction source, and a second EVA test using an identical supplemental manual refraction (MR-EVAsuppl score) was performed to determine test-retest variability.ResultsIn 878 eyes of 456 study participants, the median MR-EVA score was 74 (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/32). The spherical equivalent was often similar for manual refraction and autorefraction (median difference, 0.00; 5th-95th percentile range, -1.75 to 1.13 diopters). However, on average, the MR-EVA scores were slightly better than the AR-EVA scores, across the entire VA range. Furthermore, the variability between the AR-EVA scores and the MR-EVA scores was substantially greater than the test-retest variability of the MR-EVA scores (P < .001). The variability of differences was highly dependent on the autorefractor model.ConclusionsAcross a wide range of VAs at multiple sites using a variety of autorefractors, VA measurements tend to be worse with autorefraction than manual refraction. Differences between individual autorefractor models were identified. However, even among autorefractor models that compare most favorably with manual refraction, VA variability between autorefraction and manual refraction is higher than the test-retest variability of manual refraction. The results suggest that, with current instruments, autorefraction is not an acceptable substitute for manual refraction for most clinical trials with primary outcomes dependent on best-corrected VA.

Dataset Information

Mapping From Visual Acuity to EQ-5D, EQ-5D With Vision Bolt-On, and VFQ-UI in Patients With Macular Edema in the LEAVO Trial.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Mapping From Visual Acuity to EQ-5D, EQ-5D With Vision Bolt-On, and VFQ-UI in Patients With Macular Edema in the LEAVO Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets