Health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D in the prevention, screening and management of cervical disease: A systematic review

Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations

BACKGROUND

The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions-reporting, relevance and  methodological quality-and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.

Quality-adjusted survival in women with gynecologic malignancies receiving IMRT after surgery: A Ppatient Rreported Ooutcome study of NRG oncology's RTOG 1203

INTRODUCTION

NRG/RTOG 1203 compared 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with endometrial or cervical cancer requiring post-operative radiotherapy after hysterectomy. The purpose of this study was to report the first quality-adjusted survival analysis comparing the two treatments.

METHODS

NRG/RTOG 1203 randomized patients having undergone hysterectomy to either 3DCRT or IMRT. Stratification factors included RT dose, chemotherapy, and disease site. The EQ-5D, both index and visual analog scale (VAS), were obtained at baseline, 5 weeks after the start of RT, 4-6 weeks post RT and 1 and 3-years post RT. EQ-5D index and VAS scores along with quality-adjusted survival (QAS) were compared between treatment arms using the t-test at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

NRG/RTOG 1203 enrolled 289 patients of which 236 consented to participate in the patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments. QAS was higher in women treated with IMRT, 1374 vs 1333 days (p = 0.5) compared to patients treated with 3DCRT, but this difference was not statistically different. Patients treated with IMRT had less of a decline in VAS score 5 weeks post RT, -5.04, compared to patients treated with 3DCRT, -7.48, although not statistically significant (p = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of the use of the EQ-5D comparing two radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies after surgery. While there were no significant differences in QAS and VAS scores between patients who received IMRT vs. 3DCRT, RTOG 1203 was not powered to show statistical differences in these secondary endpoints.

The impact of population screening for cardiovascular disease on quality of life

Aims

To examine the impact of population screening-generated events on quality of life: invitation, positive test result, initiation of preventive medication, enrolment in follow-up at the surgical department, and preventive surgical repair.

Methods and results

A difference-in-difference design based on data collected alongside two randomized controlled trials where general population men were randomized to screening for cardiovascular disease or to no screening. Repeated measurements of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were conducted up to 3 years after inclusion using all relevant scales of the EuroQol instrument: the anxiety/depression dimension, the EuroQol 5-dimension profile index (using Danish preference weights), and the visual analogue scale for global health. We compare the mean change scores from before to after events for groups experiencing vs. not experiencing the events. Propensity score matching is additionally used to provide both unmatched and matched results. Invitees reported to be marginally better off than non-invitees on all scales of the EuroQol. For events of receiving the test result, initiating preventive medication, being enrolled in surveillance, and undergoing surgical repair, we observed no impact on overall HRQoL but a minor impact of being enrolled in surveillance on emotional distress, which did not persist after matching.

Conclusion

The often-claimed detrimental consequences of screening to HRQoL could not be generally confirmed. Amongst the screening events assessed, only two possible consequences were revealed: a reassurance effect after a negative screening test and a minor negative impact to emotional distress of being enrolled in surveillance that did not spill over to overall HRQoL.

Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an essential input parameter to cost-utility analysis (CUA). Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) provide summarized information for selecting utility values from an increasing number of primary studies eliciting HSUVs. Quality appraisal (QA) of such SLRs is an important process towards the credibility of HSUVs estimates; yet, authors often overlook this crucial process. A scientifically developed and widely accepted QA tool for this purpose is lacking and warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively describe the nature of QA in published SRLs of studies eliciting HSUVs and generate a list of commonly used items.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase from 01.01.2015 to 15.05.2021. SLRs of empirical studies eliciting HSUVs that were published in English were included. We extracted descriptive data, which included QA tools checklists or good practice recommendations used or cited, items used, and the methods of incorporating QA results into study findings. Descriptive statistics (frequencies of use and occurrences of items, acceptance and counterfactual acceptance rates) were computed and a comprehensive list of QA items was generated.

RESULTS

A total of 73 SLRs were included, comprising 93 items and 35 QA tools and good recommendation practices. The prevalence of QA was 55% (40/73). Recommendations by NICE and ISPOR guidelines appeared in 42% (16/40) of the SLRs that appraised quality. The most commonly used QA items in SLRs were response rates (27/40), statistical analysis (22/40), sample size (21/40) and loss of follow up (21/40). Yet, the most commonly featured items in QA tools and GPRs were statistical analysis (23/35), confounding or baseline equivalency (20/35), and blinding (14/35). Only 5% of the SLRS used QA to inform the data analysis, with acceptance rates of 100% (in two studies) 67%, 53% and 33%. The mean counterfactual acceptance rate was 55% (median 53% and IQR 56%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a considerably low prevalence of QA in the SLRs of HSUVs. Also, there is a wide variation in the QA dimensions and items included in both SLRs and extracted tools. This underscores the need for a scientifically developed QA tool for multi-variable primary studies of HSUVs.

The quality-adjusted life-years in the oncological patients' health-related quality of life

The oncological treatment can significantly affect patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which should be monitored to ensure our patients’ well-being. The often-used HRQoL measurer is the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) indicator of the disease burden, describing both quality and quantity of life lived. The main aim of the study was to discuss the methodology and usefulness of evaluating QALYs using the HRQoL questionnaires: EuroQoL (EQ)-5 dimensions-3 levels (EQ-5D-3L) and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in 32 cervical cancer patients. We obtained the questionnaire and calculated QALYs based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) method. In our study, the total scoring of the EQ-Index, EQ-VAS evaluation was 2620 and 2409 points, respectively, which corresponds with the QALYs value of 26.2 and 24.9, respectively. We expressed the QALYs outcome into the economic equivalent of nearly 900,000 US dollars (USD) as the total health profit for both the patients and the healthcare system. Obtaining the QALY factor can help establish the medical management’s influence on the patients’ HRQoL and improve the healthcare services to ensure the best health outcomes.

A comparison of six approaches for measuring utility values among patients with locally advanced cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Several instruments are available to measure health utility values. However, limited studies have not yet comprehensively assessed the agreement among these instruments. This study therefore aimed to investigate the performance and agreement of six instruments for utility measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L (cTTO model), EQ-5D-5L (DCE model), EQ-5D-5L (Hybrid model), TTO, and VAS, among locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients in Thailand.

METHODS

We compared utility scores derived from six approaches using Friedman's test. We also assessed the agreement of utility scores between each pairwise comparison by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) utility values derived from six approaches were as follows: 0.755 ± 0.248 (EQ-5D-3L), 0.801 ± 280 (TTO), 0.806 ± 0.156 (VAS), 0.871 ± 0.184 (cTTO model), 0.875 ± 0.168 (Hybrid model), and 0.900 ± 0.142 (DCE model). Significant differences across six approaches were found in Friedman's test. The ICC showed high agreement between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L, and very high agreement between all three models of EQ-5D-5L. The Bland-Altman plots showed wide limit of agreement, except the pairwise comparison, between each model of the EQ-5D-5L.

CONCLUSION

TTO, VAS, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L could not be used interchangeably in LACC patients. The impact of using different instruments on economic evaluation findings warrants further investigation.

Utility of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to measure primary health outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on how the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measure system is used to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. Articles were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and additional manual review of the publications listed on the PROMIS website. We included studies measuring outcomes, including physical function, fatigue, pain, anxiety, and depression in cancer patients. Eligible articles included interventional and observational studies published in English between 2009 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 1789 records were identified and screened by three reviewers, 118 articles were reviewed in full text, and 42 articles met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies used the PROMIS measure system to prospectively assess longitudinal changes in PROs; the number of measurements ranges from 2 to 4 with the time points of follow-up set at 3, 6, and 12 months after the baseline assessment. Depression and fatigue were the most frequently measured outcomes. Fixed-length short forms with four items were the most common measure types. A transition toward utilizing a web- or smartphone-based electronic tool was observed to limit the burden of the conventional paper-based survey to collect and store PROs.

CONCLUSION

The PROMIS measure system is increasingly popular to measure PROs in cancer patients with acceptance of its various short forms and electronic-based systems to administer data electronically. Findings from this review highlight various aspects of PROMIS and may help health professionals in their choice of PRO tools for optimizing care and support for cancer patients.