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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 12/2023

Open Access 31-07-2023 | Multiple Sclerosis

Estimating the disutility of relapse in relapsing–remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using the EQ-5D-5L, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L-psychosocial, and SF-6D: implications for health economic evaluation models

Authors: Hasnat Ahmad, Julie A. Campbell, Ingrid van der Mei, Bruce V. Taylor, Qing Xia, Ting Zhao, Andrew J. Palmer

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 12/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and aims

Relapses are an important clinical feature of multiple sclerosis (MS) that result in temporary negative changes in quality of life (QoL), measured by health state utilities (HSUs) (disutilities). We aimed to quantify disutilities of relapse in relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), secondary progressive MS (SPMS), and relapse onset MS [ROMS (including both RRMS and SPMS)] and examine these values by disability severity using four multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs).

Methods

We estimated (crude and adjusted and stratified by disability severity) disutilities (representing the mean difference in HSUs of ‘relapse’ and ‘no relapse’ groups as well as ‘unsure’ and ‘no relapse’ groups) in RRMS (n = 1056), SPMS (n = 239), and ROMS (n = 1295) cohorts from the Australian MS Longitudinal Study’s 2020 QoL survey, using the EQ-5D-5L, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial, and SF-6D MAUIs.

Results

Adjusted mean overall disutilities of relapse in RMSS/SPMS/ROMS were − 0.101/− 0.149/− 0.129 (EQ-5D-5L), − 0.092/− 0.167/− 0.113 (AQoL-8D), − 0.080/− 0.139/− 0.097 (EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial), and − 0.116/− 0.161/− 0.130 (SF-6D), approximately 1.5 times higher in SPMS than in RRMS, in all MAUI. All estimates were statistically significant and/or clinically meaningful. Adjusted disutilities of RRMS and ROMS demonstrated a U-shaped relationship between relapse disutilities and disability severity. Relapse disutilities were higher in ‘severe’ disability than ‘mild’ and ‘moderate’ in the SPMS cohort.

Conclusion

MS-related relapses are associated with substantial utility decrements. As the type and severity of MS influence disutility of relapse, the use of disability severity and MS-type-specific disutility inputs is recommended in future health economic evaluations of MS. Our study supports relapse management and prevention as major mechanisms to improve QoL in people with MS.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Buchanan, R. J., & Huang, C. (2012). Caregiver perceptions of accomplishment from assisting people with multiple sclerosis. Disability and rehabilitation, 34, 53–61.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
Lublin, F. D., & Reingold, S. C. (1996). Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: Results of an international survey. Neurology, 46, 907–911.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zhang, Y., Taylor, B., Simpson, S., Jr., Blizzard, L., & Mei, I. (2019). Patient-reported outcomes are worse for progressive-onset multiple sclerosis than relapse-onset multiple sclerosis, particularly early in the disease process. European Journal of Neurology, 26, 155–161.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Caseby, S. C. L., Woodhouse, F. A., Montgomery, S. M., Kroes, M. A., & Duddy, M. E. (2022). Transition to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: The consequences for patients and healthcare systems, a healthcare professional survey. Health Science Reports, 5, e474.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Inusah, S., Sormani, M. P., Cofield, S. S., Aban, I. B., Musani, S. K., Srinivasasainagendra, V., & Cutter, G. R. (2010). Assessing changes in relapse rates in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 16, 1414–1421.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Goudarzi, M. H., Eadie, M. J., & Hollingworth, S. A. (2021). Disease modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Use and costs in Australia (1996–2019). Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 50, 102835.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Salter, A., Lancia, S., Cutter, G., Marrie, R. A., Mendoza, J. P., Lewin, J. B., & Fox Mellen, R. J. (2021). A propensity-matched comparison of long-term disability worsening in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with dimethyl fumarate or fingolimod. Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders, 14, 17562864211021176.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Cree, B. A., Magnusson, B., Rouyrre, N., Fox, R. J., Giovannoni, G., Vermersch, P., Bar-Or, A., Gold, R., Meier, D. P., Karlsson, G., Tomic, D., Wolf, C., Dahlke, F., & Kappos, L. (2021). Siponimod: Disentangling disability and relapses in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 27, 1564–1576.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Lorscheider J, Buzzard K, Jokubaitis V, et al. Defining secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain 2016; 139: 2395-2405.
12.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Lindgren, P., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Switzerland. The European Journal of health economics, 7, 86–95.CrossRef
13.
Hawton, A., & Green, C. (2016). Health utilities for multiple sclerosis. Value in health, 19, 460–468.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Orme, M., Kerrigan, J., Tyas, D., et al. (2007). The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value in health, 10, 54–60.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Mäurer, M., Comi, G., Freedman, M. S., et al. (2016). Multiple sclerosis relapses are associated with increased fatigue and reduced health-related quality of life–A post hoc analysis of the TEMSO and TOWER studies. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 7, 33–40.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., et al. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press.
17.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of life research, 20, 1727–1736.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Norman, R., Cronin, P., & Viney, R. (2013). A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 11, 287–298.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., et al. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of Life Research : An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 2014(23), 2395–2404. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11136-014-0686-8CrossRef
20.
Chen, G., & Olsen, J. A. (2020). Filling the psycho-social gap in the EQ-5D: The empirical support for four bolt-on dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 29, 3119–3129.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 2002(21), 271–292.CrossRef
22.
Brazier, J. E., Mulhern, B. J., Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2020). Developing a New Version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Medical Care, 58, 557–565.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., et al. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35, 276–291.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., et al. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21, 1245–1257.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Hernandez, L., O’Donnell, M., & Postma, M. (2021). Predictors of health utility in relapsing-remitting and secondary-progressive multiple Sclerosis: Implications for future economic models of disease-modifying therapies. PharmacoEconomics, 39, 243–256.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Henriksson, F., Fredrikson, S., Masterman, T., et al. (2001). Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional study in Sweden. European journal of neurology, 8, 27–35.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Lindgren, P., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis in Europe: Method of assessment and analysis. The European Journal of Health Economics, 7, 5–13.CrossRef
28.
Kobelt, G. (2006). Costs and quality of life for patients with multiple sclerosis in Belgium. The European Journal of Health Economics, 7, 24–33.CrossRef
29.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Atherly, D., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis a cross-sectional study in the United States. Neurology, 66, 1696–1702.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., & Lindgren, P. (2006). Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands. The European Journal of Health Economics, 7, 55–64.CrossRef
31.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Lindgren, P., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Italy. The European Journal of Health Economics, 7, 45–54.CrossRef
32.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Lindgren, P., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Germany. The European journal of health economics, 7, 34–44.CrossRef
33.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Lindgren, P., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Spain. The European Journal of Health Economics, 7, 65–74.CrossRef
34.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Lindgren, P., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom. The European Journal of Health Economics, 7, 96–104.CrossRef
35.
Kobelt, G., Berg, J., Lindgren, P., et al. (2006). Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Austria. The European Journal of Health Economics, 7, 14–23.CrossRef
36.
Grima, D., Torrance, G., Francis, G., et al. (2000). Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 6, 91–98.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Prosser, L. A., Kuntz, K. M., Bar-Or, A., et al. (2003). Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 9, 311–319.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Karampampa K, Gustavsson A, Miltenburger C, et al. Treatment experience, burden, and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in multiple sclerosis: the costs and utilities of MS patients in Canada. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2012; 19: e11–25. 2012/01/17.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33, 1444–1444.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Julie A Campbell* and Hasnat Ahmad* GC, Ingrid van der Mei, Bruce Taylor, Suzi Claflin, Glen J Henson, Steve Simpson-Yap, Laura Laslett, Kirsty Hawkes, Carol Hurst, Hilary Waugh and Andrew J Palmer. Validation of the EQ-5D-5L and psychosocial bolt-ons in a large cohort of people living with multiple sclerosis in Australia. Quality of life research 2022; Under Review.
44.
Taylor BV, Palmer A, Simpson S, et al. Assessing possible selection bias in a national voluntary MS longitudinal study in Australia. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 2013: 1352458513481511.
45.
Ahmad, H. (2021). Health Economic Consequences of Multiple Sclerosis in Australia. University of Tasmania.
46.
47.
Norman, R., Church, J., van den Berg, B., et al. (2013). Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 37, 17–23.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of health economics, 21, 271–292.PubMedCrossRef
49.
50.
Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., et al. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Quality of life research, 23, 2395–2404.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Learmonth, Y. C., Motl, R. W., Sandroff, B. M., et al. (2013). Validation of patient determined disease steps (PDDS) scale scores in persons with multiple sclerosis. BMC neurology, 13, 37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Marrie, R.-A., Cutter, G., Tyry, T., et al. (2006). Does multiple sclerosis–associated disability differ between races? Neurology, 66, 1235–1240.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Hohol, M., Orav, E., & Weiner, H. (1995). Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: A simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology, 45, 251–255.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Hohol, M., Orav, E., & Weiner, H. (1999). Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: A longitudinal study comparing disease steps and EDSS to evaluate disease progression. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 5, 349–354.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Ahmad, H., Taylor, B. V., van der Mei, I., et al. (2017). The impact of multiple sclerosis severity on health state utility values: Evidence from Australia. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 23, 1157–1166.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Palmer AJ, Colman S, O’Leary B, et al. The economic impact of multiple sclerosis in Australia in 2010. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 2013: 1352458513488230.
57.
Wollin, J. A., Fulcher, G., McDonald, E., et al. (2010). Psychosocial factors that influence quality of life and potential for self-management in multiple sclerosis. International Journal of MS Care, 12, 133–141.CrossRef
58.
Ahmad, H., van der Mei, I., Taylor, B., et al. (2021). Does health-related quality of life differ between people with relapse onset and progressive onset Multiple Sclerosis? Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 54, 103138.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Ahmad, H., van der Mei, I., Taylor, B. V., et al. (2020). Measuring the health-related quality of life in Australians with multiple sclerosis using the assessment of quality of life-8-dimension (AQoL-8D) multi-attribute utility instrument. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 44, 102358.PubMedCrossRef
60.
McClure, N. S., Al Sayah, F., Xie, F., et al. (2017). Instrument-defined estimates of the minimally important difference for EQ-5D-5L index scores. Value in Health, 20, 644–650.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005). Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 29, 136–142.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of life research, 14, 1523–1532.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Happich, M., & von Lengerke, T. (2005). Valuing the health state ‘tinnitus’: Differences between patients and the general public. Hearing Research, 207, 50–58.PubMedCrossRef
64.
65.
Kahneman D, Diener E and Schwarz N. Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation, 1999.
66.
Draak, T., De Greef, B., Faber, C., et al. (2019). The minimum clinically important difference: Which direction to take. European journal of neurology, 26, 850–855.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Tallarida RJ, Murray RB, Tallarida RJ, et al. Chi-square test. Manual of pharmacologic calculations: with computer programs 1987: 140–142.
68.
Contentti, E. C., Giachello, S., & Correale, J. (2021). Barriers to access and utilization of multiple sclerosis care services in a large cohort of Latin American patients. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 27(1), 117–129.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Estimating the disutility of relapse in relapsing–remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using the EQ-5D-5L, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L-psychosocial, and SF-6D: implications for health economic evaluation models
Authors
Hasnat Ahmad
Julie A. Campbell
Ingrid van der Mei
Bruce V. Taylor
Qing Xia
Ting Zhao
Andrew J. Palmer
Publication date
31-07-2023
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 12/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03486-y

Other articles of this Issue 12/2023

Quality of Life Research 12/2023 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Impaired health-related quality of life in the HCV cure era: who is concerned? (ANRS CO22 HEPATHER French cohort)

OriginalPaper

Health outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in caregivers of service members and veterans with traumatic brain injury

OriginalPaper

Change in health-related quality of life and functional disability over time post-concussion in youth

OriginalPaper

The Patient Generated Index (PGI) as an early-warning system for predicting brain health challenges: a prospective cohort study for people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

OriginalPaper

Translation and validation of a Chinese version of the pancreatitis quality of life instrument (PANQOLI) in patients with chronic pancreatitis

OriginalPaper

Development and initial psychometric evaluation of a COVID-related psychosocial experiences questionnaire for cancer survivors