Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To compare the measurement properties between EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 and QLU-C10D utilities, and to assess the implications of their adoption in QALY estimation in hematologic cancer patients.</p> Method <p>Longitudinal data of Chinese lymphoma and myeloma patients were adopted. Utility scores of the three instruments were calculated based on a variety of country-specific value sets. Their measurement properties including convergent validity, known-group validity, sensitivity, and responsiveness were compared. With-in group change in utilities derived from the instruments were also generated and compared.</p> Results <p>A total of 200 lymphoma and 139 myeloma patients were enrolled at baseline; and 78 and 89 of them were followed up, respectively. The three kinds of utilities showed similar convergent validity; but all had restricted known-group validity. All of them could identify meaningful changes in clinical status; while whether QLU-C10D utilities was more responsive and yielded larger utility change were closely related to the value sets adopted.</p> Conclusion <p>It appears that the advantages of QLU-C10D over EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 were not so obvious, and it may not necessarily produce more QALY gains as well. The choice of utility value set played an important role in the two aspects.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparing EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utilities with QLU-C10D utilities in hematologic cancer patients

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月8日

查看全文
  • Tiantian Zhang,
  • Aixue Zhang,
  • Jing Li,
  • Fangyu Li,
  • Peng Liu,
  • Pei Wang

摘要

Objectives

To compare the measurement properties between EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 and QLU-C10D utilities, and to assess the implications of their adoption in QALY estimation in hematologic cancer patients.

Method

Longitudinal data of Chinese lymphoma and myeloma patients were adopted. Utility scores of the three instruments were calculated based on a variety of country-specific value sets. Their measurement properties including convergent validity, known-group validity, sensitivity, and responsiveness were compared. With-in group change in utilities derived from the instruments were also generated and compared.

Results

A total of 200 lymphoma and 139 myeloma patients were enrolled at baseline; and 78 and 89 of them were followed up, respectively. The three kinds of utilities showed similar convergent validity; but all had restricted known-group validity. All of them could identify meaningful changes in clinical status; while whether QLU-C10D utilities was more responsive and yielded larger utility change were closely related to the value sets adopted.

Conclusion

It appears that the advantages of QLU-C10D over EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 were not so obvious, and it may not necessarily produce more QALY gains as well. The choice of utility value set played an important role in the two aspects.