Time perspective profile and self-reported health on the EQ-5D

Objectives: Time perspective (TP) is a psychological construct that is associated with several health-related behaviours, including healthy eating, smoking and adherence to medications. In this study, we aimed to examine the associations of TP profile with self-reported health on the EQ-5D-5L and to detect which domains display response heterogeneity (cut-point shift) for TP. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of EQ-5D-5L data from a representative general population sample in Hungary (n = 996). The 17-item Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory was used to measure individuals' TP on five subscales: past-negative, past-positive, present-fatalist, present-hedonist and future. The associations between TP subscales and EQ-5D-5L domain scores, EQ VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values were analysed by using partial proportional odds models and multivariate linear regressions. Results: Respondents that scored higher on the past-negative and present-fatalist and lower on the present-hedonist and future subscales were more likely to report more health problems in at least one EQ-5D-5L domain (p &lt; 0.05). Adjusting for socio-economic and health status, three EQ-5D-5L domains exhibited significant associations with various TP subscales (usual activities: present-fatalist and future, pain/discomfort: past-negative and future, anxiety/depression: past-negative, present-fatalist, present-hedonist and future). The anxiety/depression domain showed evidence of cut-point shift. Conclusions: This study identified response heterogeneity stemming from psychological characteristics in self-reported health on the EQ-5D-5L. TP seems to play a double role in self-reported health, firstly as affecting underlying health and secondly as a factor influencing one’s response behavior. These findings increase our understanding of the non-health-related factors that affect self-reported health on standardized health status measures.</p

A Direct Comparison of the Measurement Properties of EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and PROMIS Global Health Instruments and EQ-5D-5L and PROPr Utilities in a General Population Sample

Objectives: We aimed to compare measurement properties of the 5-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short forms, PROMIS-29+2 and PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH-10), and of EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-preference scoring system (PROPr) utilities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a general population sample in Hungary (N = 1631). We compared the following measurement properties at the level of items, domains, and utilities, the latter using corresponding US value sets: ceiling and floor, informativity (Shannon's indices), agreement, convergent, and known-group validity. For the analyses, PROMIS items/domains were matched to EQ-5D-5L domains that cover similar concepts of health. Results: The majority of PROMIS items showed enhanced distributional characteristics, including lower ceilings and higher informativity than the EQ-5D-5L. Good convergent validity was established between EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS domains capturing similar aspects of health. Mean EQ-5D-5L utilities were substantially higher than those of PROPr (0.864 vs 0.535). EQ-5D-5L utilities correlated moderately or strongly with PROPr (r = 0.61), PROMIS-GH-10 physical (r = 0.68), and mental health summary scores (r = 0.53). EQ-5D-5L utilities decreased with age, whereas PROPr utilities slightly increased with age. EQ-5D-5L utilities discriminated significantly better in 12/28 (ratio of F-statistics) and 18/26 (area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve ratio) known groups defined by age, self-perceived health status, and self-reported physician-diagnosed health conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and stroke. Conclusions: This study provides comparative evidence on the measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2, and PROMIS-GH-10 and informs decisions about the choice of instruments in population health surveys for assessment of patients’ health and for cost-utility analyses.</p

Analyzing the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression Composite Domains and the Meaning of Discomfort in the EQ-5D

Objectives: The EQ-5D has 2 composite domains: pain/discomfort (PD) and anxiety/depression (AD). This study aims to explore how respondents use the composites to self-report health and what the meaning of discomfort is in the EQ-5D for the general public. Methods: Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in an online cross-sectional survey involving a nationally representative general population sample in Hungary (n = 1700). Respondents completed the 5-level version of EQ-5D, followed by the composites split into individual subdomains. Open-ended questions were asked to explore respondents’ interpretations and experiences of discomfort. Results: Six different response behaviors were identified in the composites: “uniform” (21%-32%), “most severe” (30%-34%), “least severe” (16%-23%), “average” (2%-4%), “synergistic” (4%-5%), and “inconsistent” (13%-15%). Compared with the individual subdomains, many respondents under-reported their problems on both composites (PD 16%-22% and AD 6%-13%, P , .05). In respondents who scored differently in the 2 separate domains, mainly problems with the first subdomain determined responses in the composites (PD 66% and AD 61%). The discomfort subdomain in the EQ-5D captured more than 100 different problems, including pain, nonpain physical discomfort (eg, tiredness, dizziness, and nausea), and psychological discomfort (eg, anxiety, nervousness, and sadness). Women, older adults, and those in worse general health status more often considered discomfort as pain (P , .05). Conclusions: We found empirical evidence of measurement error in the composite responses on the EQ-5D, including underand inconsistent reporting, ordering effects, potential differential item functioning, and interdomain dependency. Our findings contribute new knowledge to the development of new and refinement of existing self-reported health status instruments, also beyond the EQ-5D

A qualitative investigation of the relevance of skin irritation and self-confidence bolt-ons and their conceptual overlap with the EQ-5D in patients with psoriasis

Objectives A number of bolt-ons have been proposed for the EQ-5D, including two psoriasis-specific bolt-ons, skin irritation and self-confidence. The study investigates and compares the relevance and comprehensiveness of these psoriasis-specific bolt-ons and the EQ-5D-5L and explores the potential conceptual overlaps between the existing five dimensions and the two bolt-ons. Methods Psoriasis patients were purposively sampled according to age and gender. Semi-structured interviews, where participants were asked to complete the EQ-5D-5L and the bolt-ons while thinking aloud, were conducted. Probes were used to investigate the thought processes of patients regarding the dimensions, wording, recall period and relevant concepts not captured by the EQ-5D-5L and bolt-ons. Data were analysed thematically. A focus group was used to confirm the findings. Results Overall, 16 patients completed the interviews. Sixteen and fifteen patients considered skin irritation and self-confidence relevant areas to describe psoriasis problems. Three patients considered itching a form of discomfort, and thus, pointed out a potential overlap between pain/discomfort and skin irritation. Twelve patients reported overall 10 general health- or psoriasis-related concepts that are not captured by the EQ-5D-5L, including itching, social relationships and sex life. Eleven patients reported that the recall period of the EQ-5D-5L might be subject to bias because of the daily or within-day fluctuations of their symptoms. Conclusions The skin irritation and self-confidence bolt-ons contribute to improve content validity of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with psoriasis. The qualitative approach taken in this study expands the existing methodological framework for the development and testing validity of bolt-ons for the EQ-5D

Determinants of biological drug survival in rheumatoid arthritis:Evidence from a Hungarian rheumatology center over 8 years of retrospective data

OBJECTIVE: To compare drug survival of biological therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and analyze the determinants of discontinuation probabilities and switches to other biological therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive RA patients initiating first biological treatment in one rheumatology center between 2006 and 2013 were included. Log-rank test was used to analyze the differences between the survival curves of different biological drugs. Cox regression was applied to analyze the discontinuation due to inefficacy, the occurrence of adverse events, or to any reasons. RESULTS: A total of 540 patients were included in the analysis. The most frequently used first-line biological treatments were infliximab (N=176, 33%), adalimumab (N=150, 28%), and etanercept (N=132, 24%). Discontinuation of first tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) treatment was observed for 347 (64%) patients, due to inefficacy (n=209, 60%), adverse events (n=103, 30%), and other reasons (n=35, 10%). Drug survival rates for TNF-α and non-TNF-α therapies were significantly different, and were in favor of non-TNF-α therapies. Every additional number of treatment significantly increased the risk of inefficacy by 27% (p<0.001) and of adverse events by 35% (p=0.002). After the discontinuation of the initial TNF-α treatment, switching to rituximab and tocilizumab was associated with significantly longer treatment duration than switching to a second TNF-α. The non-TNF-α therapies resulted in significantly longer treatment duration, due to both less adverse events and longer maintenance of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Non-TNF-α therapies resulted in significantly longer treatment duration, and lost their effectiveness later. Increase in the number of switches significantly increased the risk of discontinuation of any biological therapy

Validation of the Hungarian version of the CarerQol instrument in informal caregivers: results from a cross‑sectional survey among the general population in Hungary

Purpose The CarerQol instrument has been designed and validated as an instrument able to measure both the positive and the negative impacts of caregiving on the quality of life of informal caregivers (CarerQol-7D), as well as their general happiness (CarerQol-VAS). The aim of this study was to assess the construct validity of the CarerQol in the Hungarian context. Methods The CarerQol was translated into Hungarian. Subsequently, in a cross-sectional online survey, representative for the general Hungarian population (N=1000), informal caregivers were identifed (N=149, female 51.2%, mean age 53.2). Clinical, convergent and discriminant validity of the CarerQol were evaluated in relation to the caregivers’ and care recipients’ EQ-5D-5L health status, and caregiving situation characteristics. Results Average CarerQol-7D and CarerQol-VAS scores were 76.0 (SD 16.2) and 6.8 (SD 2.3), respectively. CarerQol-7D and CarerQol-VAS scores were signifcantly correlated with caregiving time (r=−0.257; −0.212), caregivers’ EQ-5D-5L scores (r=0.453; 0.326) and the CarerQol-7D also with care recipients’ EQ-5D-5L scores (r=0.247). CarerQol-7D scores difered signifcantly with relevant caregiving characteristics (e.g. nature and severity of care recipients’ health status, sharing household) and both the CarerQol-7D and CarerQol-VAS with the overall care experience. Conclusion Our fndings confrmed the validity of the Hungarian language version of the CarerQol and support the crosscultural validity of the instrument. CarerQol-7D scores performed better in distinguishing caregiving situation characteristics than the general happiness measure CarerQol-VAS. Care recipients’ health status was only weakly associated with informal caregivers’ care-related quality of life and happiness. Caregivers’ own health and caregiving circumstances were more strongly associated with these scores

Validity of EQ‐5D‐5L, Skindex‐16, DLQI and DLQI‐R in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa

Background Numerous generic, skin‐ and disease‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) measures are available for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Yet, robust psychometric evidence is lacking in many aspects of these outcome measures. Objectives We sought to determine convergent and known‐groups validity of multiple generic and skin‐specific HRQoL measures and to identify predictors of impaired HRQoL in patients with HS. Methods Between 2017 and 2019, a multicentre cross‐sectional study was carried out involving 200 consecutive HS patients. HRQoL outcomes included the EQ‐5D‐5L, EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS), Skindex‐16, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and DLQI‐Relevant (DLQI‐R). Disease severity was graded by HS‐Physician’s Global Assessment (HS‐PGA) scale and the Modified Sartorius scale (MSS). Results Overall, 77%, 56%, 51%, 46% and 28% reported problems in the pain/discomfort, usual activities, anxiety/depression, mobility and self‐care dimensions of EQ‐5D‐5L. Mean ± SD EQ VAS, DLQI and DLQI‐R scores were 64.29 ± 22.68, 11.75 ± 8.11 and 12.19 ± 8.33, respectively. Skindex‐16 responses indicated that the emotional burden of HS (64.55 ± 29.28) far exceeded those of functioning (49.40 ± 34.70) and physical symptoms (46.74 ± 29.36). EQ‐5D‐5L, EQ VAS, DLQI, DLQI‐R and Skindex‐16 total scores had moderate or strong correlations with each other (range: |0.487| to |0.993|), weak or moderate correlations with HS‐PGA (|0.350| to |0.433|) and weak correlations with MSS (|0.324| to |0.389|). DLQI‐R slightly outperformed DLQI both in terms of convergent and known‐groups validity. Being female, lower education level, more severe disease and genital involvement were associated with worse HRQoL (P < 0.05). Conclusion This study provides high‐quality evidence that among skin‐specific outcomes, the DLQI, DLQI‐R and Skindex‐16, and among generic instruments, the EQ‐5D‐5L are suitable to be used in HS patients. In future research, we recommend the use of existing well‐validated HRQoL tools instead of developing new measures for each study. The development of composite measures that combine physician‐ and patient‐reported outcomes is not supported by evidence in HS