The EQ-5D-5L Index Score is More Discriminative Than the EQ-5D-3L Index Score in Diabetes Patients

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2014 Dec 26

PMID 25540029

Citations 44

Authors

Chen-Wei Pan

Hong-Peng Sun

Xingzhi Wang

QingHua Ma

Yong Xu

Nan Luo

Pei Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the discriminative power of the index scores of EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EQ-5D-3L (3L) in diabetes patients in China.

Methods: A consecutive sample of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the clinics self-completed the two versions of EQ-5D. The 3L index score was obtained from the Chinese 3L value set; the 5L index score was predicted from the 3L index score using an interim scoring. Relative efficiency (RE) of the 5L and 3L index scores was calculated to compare their ability in differentiating between T2DM patients with and without one of ten clinical conditions. The efficiency of the 5L and 3L health state classification systems was assessed using the Shannon index (H') and in terms of ceiling effects.

Results: A total of 289 T2DM patients participated in this study. The 5L score was systematically lower than the 3L score for T2DM patients with and without a condition (range -0.36 to -0.06). The 5L score exhibited higher discriminative power in nine of ten conditions, with the mean RE value being 1.92. 5L had higher H' values than 3L in all the five EQ-5D dimensions: mobility (1.14 vs. 0.70), self-care (0.44 vs. 0.33), usual activities (0.72 vs. 0.47), pain/discomfort (1.58 vs. 1.10), and anxiety/depression (1.03 vs. 0.67). The overall ceiling effects decreased from 56.7 % (3L) to 36.7 % (5L).

Conclusion: The 5L index score is more discriminative than the 3L index score in T2DM patients and therefore is preferable for use in this population.

Citing Articles

Health state utility values of type 2 diabetes mellitus and related complications: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Wang Y, Xu Y, Shan H, Pan H, Chen J, Yang J Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024; 22(1):74.

PMID: 39244536 PMC: 11380328. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-024-02288-1.

Utilities for Complications Associated with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Literature.

Valentine W, Norrbacka K, Boye K Adv Ther. 2024; 41(7):2655-2681.

PMID: 38771477 PMC: 11213775. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-024-02878-x.

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6Dv2 in patients with late-onset Pompe disease.

Xu R, Luo N, Dong D Eur J Health Econ. 2024; 25(9):1505-1515.

PMID: 38472723 PMC: 11512824. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01682-2.

Health Outcomes Following Engagement With a Digital Health Tool Among People With Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Prospective Evaluation Study.

Abdelhameed F, Pearson E, Parsons N, Barber T, Panesar A, Summers C JMIR Diabetes. 2023; 8:e47224.

PMID: 38016426 PMC: 10784975. DOI: 10.2196/47224.

Examining the relationship between the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and EQ-5D-5L and comparing their psychometric properties.

Hong Y, Jiang X, Zhang T, Luo N, Yang Z Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21(1):25.

PMID: 36927468 PMC: 10018827. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02108-y.

References

Wang H, Patrick D, Edwards T, Skalicky A, Zeng H, Gu W . Validation of the EQ-5D in a general population sample in urban China. Qual Life Res. 2011; 21(1):155-60. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9915-6. View

Rabin R, de Charro F . EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):337-43. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002087. View

McLernon D, Dillon J, Donnan P . Health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28(4):582-92. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315240. View

Shaw J, Johnson J, Coons S . US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005; 43(3):203-20. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003. View

Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P . Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care. 2003; 41(2):218-31. DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000044901.57067.19. View

Pickard A, De Leon M, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S . Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007; 45(3):259-63. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81. View

Bagust A, Beale S . Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ. 2004; 14(3):217-30. DOI: 10.1002/hec.910. View

Morgan C, McEwan P, Morrissey M, Peters J, Poole C, Currie C . Characterization and comparison of health-related utility in people with diabetes with various single and multiple vascular complications. Diabet Med. 2006; 23(10):1100-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01936.x. View

Janssen M, Lubetkin E, Sekhobo J, Pickard A . The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011; 28(4):395-413. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03136.x. View

10.

Ong S, Mak B, Aung M, Li S, Lim S . Health-related quality of life in chronic hepatitis B patients. Hepatology. 2008; 47(4):1108-17. DOI: 10.1002/hep.22138. View

11.

Bech P, Moses R, Gomis R . The effect of prandial glucose regulation with repaglinide on treatment satisfaction, wellbeing and health status in patients with pharmacotherapy naïve Type 2 diabetes: a placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Qual Life Res. 2003; 12(4):413-25. DOI: 10.1023/a:1023495106160. View

12.

van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng Y, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D . Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012; 15(5):708-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. View

13.

Luo N, Cang S, Quah H, How C, Tay E . The discriminative power of the EuroQol visual analog scale is sensitive to survey language in Singapore. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10:32. PMC: 3365872. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-32. View

14.

Wang H, Kindig D, Mullahy J . Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(1):119-32. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-0612-6. View

15.

Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T . Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002; 11(4):341-53. DOI: 10.1002/hec.673. View

16.

Craig B, Pickard A, Lubetkin E . Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 67(1):93-9. PMC: 4091801. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.011. View

17.

Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L . Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(7):1707-16. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0. View

18.

Myers C, Wilks D . Comparison of Euroqol EQ-5D and SF-36 in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Qual Life Res. 1999; 8(1-2):9-16. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026459027453. View

19.

Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J . International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009; 12(8):1194-200. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00581.x. View

20.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J . A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004; 13(9):873-84. DOI: 10.1002/hec.866. View