Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
Published in: Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 4/2019

01-12-2019 | Colorectal Cancer

Assessing the performance of direct and indirect utility eliciting methods in patients with colorectal cancer: EQ-5D-5L versus C-TTO

Authors: Mahmood Yousefi, Hossein Safari, Ali Akbari Sari, Behzad Raei, Hosein Ameri

Published in: Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Direct and indirect preference-based methods are two main types of utility generating methods which are being frequently used in cost-utility analysis. However, a key question is how do these two methods perform in terms of validity? The aim of this study is to assess the utilities derived from EuroQol five-dimensional 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) as an indirect method and composite time trade-off (C-TTO) as a direct method in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 223 patients with CRC were consecutively selected from three cancer centers in Tehran between May and September 2017. The EQ-5D-5L and C-TTO methods were used to estimate utilities in patients. Wilcoxon test was performed to compare utilities between C-TTO and EQ-5D-5L. In addition, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman plot were used to assess the agreement between the two methods. Bootstrapping quantile regression analysis was performed for comparison coefficient. The mean values of EQ-5D-5L (0.7186 ± 0.1275) for all stages were significantly higher than the C-TTO (0.4180 ± 0.4670) values. Stage 1 had the highest utility in both C-TTO (0.8167 ± 0.2332) and EQ-5D-5L (0.8339 ± 0.0535), whereas stage 4 had the lowest utility (0.1283 ± 0.5530 and 0.6001 ± 0.1220, respectively). As well, the C-TTO underestimates the values in low level of utilities and overestimates in high level of utilities. The overall ICC between the two methods was 0.50. Our study provides some tentative results about the differences between values of EQ-5D-5L and C-TTO, but clearly more work is needed to be done on this issue.
Literature
Ameri, H., Yousefi, M., Yaseri, M., Nahvijou, A., Arab, M., Akbari Sari, A.: Mapping the cancer-specific QLQ-C30 onto the generic EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in colorectal cancer patients. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 19(1), 1–8 (2018)
Ameri, H., Yousefi, M., Yaseri, M., Nahvijou, A., Arab, M., Akbari, Sari A.: Mapping the cancer-specific QLQ-C30 onto the generic EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in colorectal cancer patients. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 19(1), 89–96 (2019b)CrossRefPubMed
Badia, X., Diaz-Prieto, A., Gorriz, M., Herdman, M., Torrado, H., Farrero, E., et al.: Using the EuroQol-5D to measure changes in quality of life 12 months after discharge from an intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 27(12), 1901–1907 (2001)CrossRefPubMed
Bozzani, F.M., Alavi, Y., Jofre-Bonet, M., Kuper, H.: A comparison of the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and TTO utility values to changes in vision and perceived visual function in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol. 12(1), 43 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R.L., Torre, L.A., Jemal, A.: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68(6), 394–424 (2018)CrossRefPubMed
Burström, K., Johannesson, M., Diderichsen, F.: A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy 76(3), 359–370 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
Golicki, D., Niewada, M., van Hout, B., Janssen, M., Pickard, A.S.: Interim EQ-5D-5L value set for Poland: first crosswalk value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health Reg. Issues 4, 19–23 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlińska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M., et al.: Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Qual. Life Res. 24(6), 1555–1563 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
Goudarzi, R., Sari, A.A., Zeraati, H., Rashidian, A., Mohammad, K., Amini, S.: Valuation of quality weights for EuroQol 5-dimensional health states with the time trade-off method in the capital of Iran. Value Health Reg. Issues 18, 170–175 (2019)CrossRefPubMed
Heintz, E., Wiréhn, A.-B., Peebo, B.B., Rosenqvist, U., Levin, L.-Å.: QALY weights for diabetic retinopathy—a comparison of health state valuations with HUI-3, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and TTO. Value Health 15(3), 475–484 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
Janssen, B.M., Oppe, M., Versteegh, M.M., Stolk, E.A.: Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur. J. Health Econ. 14(1), 5–13 (2013)CrossRefPubMedCentral
Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J., Ergo, A., Szava-Kovats, G.: Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 13(4), 421–433 (1998)CrossRefPubMed
Kang, H.-J., Kang, E., Jo, M.-W., Park, E.-J., Yoon, S., Lee, E.-K.: The utility score of epilepsy with partial seizure measured by TTO, VAS, and EQ-5D in the general Korean population. Epilepsy Res. 108(5), 963–971 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
Lidgren, M., Wilking, N., Jönsson, B., Rehnberg, C.: Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual. Life Res. 16(6), 1073–1081 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
Luo, N., Li, M., Stolk, E.A., Devlin, N.J.: The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework. Eur. J. Health Econ. 14(1), 15–24 (2013)CrossRefPubMedCentral
Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Luo, N.: EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics 34(10), 993–1004 (2016)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Peeters, Y., Stiggelbout, A.M.: Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health 13(2), 306–309 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
Perez, D.J., Williams, S.M., Christensen, E.A., McGee, R.O., Campbell, A.V.: A longitudinal study of health related quality of life and utility measures in patients with advanced breast cancer. Qual. Life Res. 10(7), 587–593 (2001)CrossRefPubMed
Polsky, D., Willke, R.J., Scott, K., Schulman, K.A., Glick, H.A.: A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public. Health Econ. 10(1), 27–37 (2001)CrossRefPubMed
Ratcliffe, J., Brazier, J., Palfreyman, S., Michaels, J.: A comparison of patient and population values for health states in varicose veins patients. Health Econ. 16(4), 395–405 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
Round, J.: Once bitten twice shy: thinking carefully before adopting the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics 36(6), 641–643 (2018)CrossRefPubMed
Ubel, P.A., Loewenstein, G., Jepson, C.: Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual. Life Res. 12(6), 599–607 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
Van Hout, B., Janssen, M., Feng, Y.-S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., et al.: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15(5), 708–715 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
van Reenen, M., Janssen, B.: EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument. EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam (2015)
Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E.: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual. Life Res. 14(6), 1523–1532 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
Zethraeus, N., Johannesson, M.: A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ. 8(6), 541–545 (1999)CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Assessing the performance of direct and indirect utility eliciting methods in patients with colorectal cancer: EQ-5D-5L versus C-TTO
Authors
Mahmood Yousefi
Hossein Safari
Ali Akbari Sari
Behzad Raei
Hosein Ameri
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1387-3741
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9400
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-019-00204-5