Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients

Aims: To date, evidence to support the construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L has primarily focused on cross-sectional data. The aims of this study were to examine the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L in patients with stroke and to compare it with responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L and visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). Methods: We performed an observational longitudinal cohort study of patients with stroke. At 1 week and 4 months post-stroke, patients were assessed with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel Index (BI) and were administered the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L, including the EQ VAS. The EQ-5D-5L index scores were derived using the crosswalk methodology developed by the EuroQol Group. We classified patients according to two external criteria, based on mRS or BI, into 3 categories: ‘improvement,’ ‘stable’ or ‘deterioration’. We assessed the responsiveness of each measure in each patient subgroup using: effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), F-statistic, relative efficiency and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: A total of 112 patients (52 % females; mean age 70.6 years; 93 % ischemic stroke) completed all the instruments at both occasions. In subjects with clinical improvement, EQ-5D-5L was consistently responsive, showing moderate ES (0.51–0.71) and moderate to large SRM (0.69–0.86). In general, EQ-5D-3L index appeared to be more responsive (ES 0.63–0.82; SRM 0.77–1.06) and EQ VAS less responsive (ES 0.51–0.65; SRM 0.59–0.69) than EQ-5D-5L index. Conclusions: The EQ-5D-5L index, based on the crosswalk value set, seems to be appropriately responsive in patients with stroke, 4 months after disease onset. As far as EQ-5D-5L index is scored according to crosswalk approach, the EQ-5D-3L index appears to be more responsive in stroke population

Development of Population Tariffs for the CarerQol Instrument for Hungary, Poland and Slovenia

__Background:__ The CarerQol instrument can be used in economic evaluations to measure the care-related quality of life of informal caregivers. Tariff sets are available for Australia, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA. __Objective:__ Our objective was to develop tariff sets for the CarerQol instrument for Hungary, Poland and Slovenia and to compare these with the existing value sets. __Methods:__ Discrete-choice experiments were carried out in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. Data were collected through an online survey between November 2018 and January 2019, using representative samples of 1000 respondents per country. Tariffs were calculated from coefficient estimates from panel mixed multinomial logit models with random parameters. __Results:__ All seven CarerQol domains contributed significantly to the utility associated with different caregiving situations. Attributes valued highest were ‘physical health

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the 5-level classification system of the EQ-5D (5L), in comparison with the 3-level EQ-5D (3L). Methods: Participants (n = 3,919) from six countries, including eight patient groups with chronic conditions (

EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe : 2000-2015

Objective: Cost per quality-adjusted life year data are required for reimbursement decisions in many Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. EQ-5D is by far the most commonly used instrument to generate utility values in CEE. This study aims to systematically review the literature on EQ-5D from eight CEE countries. Methods: An electronic database search was performed up to July 1, 2015 to identify original EQ-5D studies from the countries of interest. We analysed the use of EQ-5D with respect to clinical areas, methodological rigor, population norms and value sets. Results: We identified 143 studies providing 152 country-specific results with a total sample size of 81,619: Austria (n=11), Bulgaria (n=6), Czech Republic (n=18), Hungary (n=47), Poland (n=51), Romania (n=2), Slovakia (n=3) and Slovenia (n=14). Cardiovascular (20%), neurologic (16%), musculoskeletal (15%) and endocrine/nutritional/metabolic diseases (14%) were the most frequently studied clinical areas. Overall 112 (78%) of the studies reported EQ VAS results and 86 (60%) EQ-5D index scores, of which 27 (31%) did not specify the applied tariff. Hungary, Poland and Slovenia have population norms. Poland and Slovenia also have a national value set. Conclusions: Increasing use of EQ-5D is observed throughout CEE. The spread of health technology assessment activities in countries seems to be reflected in the number of EQ-5D studies. However, improvement in informed use and methodological quality of reporting is needed. In jurisdictions where no national value set is available, in order to ensure comparability we recommend to apply the most frequently used UK tariff. Regional collaboration between CEE countries should be strengthened