The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1007/s10198-024-01670-6
Micha J Pilz, Simon Seyringer, Lára R Hallsson, Andrew Bottomley, Femke Jansen, Madeleine T King, Richard Norman, Marianne J Rutten, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw, Peter D Siersema, Eva Maria Gamper
{"title":"The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands.","authors":"Micha J Pilz, Simon Seyringer, Lára R Hallsson, Andrew Bottomley, Femke Jansen, Madeleine T King, Richard Norman, Marianne J Rutten, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw, Peter D Siersema, Eva Maria Gamper","doi":"10.1007/s10198-024-01670-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cost-utility analysis typically relies on preference-based measures (PBMs). While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs can capture aspects relevant for certain patient populations. Here the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific PBM based on the QLQ-C30, is validated using Dutch trial data with the EQ-5D-3L as a generic comparator measure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed data from four Dutch randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comprising the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L. Respective Dutch value sets were applied. Correlations between the instruments were calculated for domains and index scores. Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlations (ICC) displayed agreement between the measures. Independent and paired t-tests, effect sizes and relative validity indices were used to determine the instruments' performance in detecting clinically known-group differences and health changes over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analysed data from 602 cancer patients from four different trials. In overall, the EORTC QLU-C10D showed good relative validity with the EQ-5D-3L as a comparator (correlations of index scores r = 0.53-0.75, ICCs 0.686-0.808, conceptually similar domains showed higher correlations than dissimilar domains). Most importantly, it detected 63% of expected clinical group differences and 50% of changes over time in patients undergoing treatment. Both instruments showed poor performance in survivors. Detection rate and measurement efficiency were clearly higher for the QLU-C10D than for the EQ-5D-3L.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D showed good comparative validity in patients undergoing treatment. Our results underline the benefit that can be achieved by using a cancer-specific PBM for generating health utilities for cancer patients from a measurement perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11512862/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01670-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cost-utility analysis typically relies on preference-based measures (PBMs). While generic PBMs are widely used, disease-specific PBMs can capture aspects relevant for certain patient populations. Here the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific PBM based on the QLQ-C30, is validated using Dutch trial data with the EQ-5D-3L as a generic comparator measure.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed data from four Dutch randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comprising the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L. Respective Dutch value sets were applied. Correlations between the instruments were calculated for domains and index scores. Bland-Altman plots and intra-class correlations (ICC) displayed agreement between the measures. Independent and paired t-tests, effect sizes and relative validity indices were used to determine the instruments' performance in detecting clinically known-group differences and health changes over time.

Results: We analysed data from 602 cancer patients from four different trials. In overall, the EORTC QLU-C10D showed good relative validity with the EQ-5D-3L as a comparator (correlations of index scores r = 0.53-0.75, ICCs 0.686-0.808, conceptually similar domains showed higher correlations than dissimilar domains). Most importantly, it detected 63% of expected clinical group differences and 50% of changes over time in patients undergoing treatment. Both instruments showed poor performance in survivors. Detection rate and measurement efficiency were clearly higher for the QLU-C10D than for the EQ-5D-3L.

Conclusions: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D showed good comparative validity in patients undergoing treatment. Our results underline the benefit that can be achieved by using a cancer-specific PBM for generating health utilities for cancer patients from a measurement perspective.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在荷兰,EORTC QLU-C10D 是一种有效的基于癌症特异性偏好的测量方法,可用于成本效用和卫生技术评估。
背景:成本效用分析通常依赖于基于偏好的衡量标准(PBMs)。虽然通用的 PBM 被广泛使用,但针对特定疾病的 PBM 可以捕捉与某些患者群体相关的方面。EORTC QLU-C10D 是一种基于 QLQ-C30 的癌症特异性 PBM,本文使用荷兰的试验数据对其进行了验证,并将 EQ-5D-3L 作为通用的比较测量指标:我们回顾性分析了四项荷兰随机对照试验(RCT)的数据,其中包括 EORTC QLQ-C30 和 EQ-5D-3L。采用了各自的荷兰数值集。针对领域和指数得分计算了工具之间的相关性。布兰德-阿尔特曼图和类内相关性(ICC)显示了测量之间的一致性。独立和配对 t 检验、效应大小和相对有效性指数用于确定工具在检测临床已知群体差异和随时间推移的健康变化方面的性能:我们分析了来自四项不同试验的 602 名癌症患者的数据。总体而言,EORTC QLU-C10D 与 EQ-5D-3L 相比显示出良好的相对有效性(指数得分的相关性 r = 0.53-0.75,ICCs 0.686-0.808,概念相似的领域比概念不同的领域显示出更高的相关性)。最重要的是,它能检测出 63% 的预期临床组别差异和 50% 的接受治疗患者随时间发生的变化。这两种工具在幸存者中的表现都很差。QLU-C10D的检测率和测量效率明显高于EQ-5D-3L:结论:荷兰 EORTC QLU-C10D 在接受治疗的患者中表现出良好的比较有效性。我们的结果凸显了从测量的角度来看,使用癌症专用的 PBM 为癌症患者生成健康效用所能带来的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.30%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics: • Basics of health economic approaches and methods • Pharmacoeconomics • Health Care Systems • Pricing and Reimbursement Systems • Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements. Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ
期刊最新文献
Psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in patients with lymphoma in China. What remains after the money ends? Evidence on whether admission reductions continued following the largest health and social care integration programme in England. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6Dv2 in patients with late-onset Pompe disease. The causal effect of early retirement on medication use across sex and occupation: evidence from Danish administrative data. Cost awareness among intensivists in their daily clinical practice: a prospective multicentre study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1