Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysis

Hansoo Kim; Greg Cook; Stephen Goodall; Danny Liew

doi:10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8

Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysis

Hansoo Kim^*
, Greg Cook
, Stephen Goodall
, Danny Liew

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background:
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate.

Objective:
This study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure–Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma.

Methods:
Quality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures.

Results:
Mean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson’s correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient < 0.90) at baseline. The model predicted slightly higher QALYs gained when using EQ-5D-3L over QLU-C10D-derived utilities (1.87 vs 1.74, respectively). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$30.5K when using EQ-5D-3L utilities, compared to US$32.7K when using QLU-C10D utilities. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the two sets of utilities were almost indistinguishable.

Conclusion:
This study supports the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument in immunotherapy treated metastatic melanoma, and found no additional benefit for using the disease-specific QLU-C10D when using Australian weights.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	459-467
Number of pages	9
Journal	PharmacoEconomics - Open
Volume	5
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8
Publication status	Published - 23 Sept 2021
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8Licence: CC BY-NC

Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysisFinal published version, 1.24 MBLicence: CC BY-NC

https://rdcu.be/fjFg9Licence: Free to read

Cite this

@article{b8dfdfe0831646c6acb545d37798bf01,

title = "Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysis",

abstract = "Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate. Objective: This study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure–Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Methods: Quality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures. Results: Mean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson{\textquoteright}s correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin{\textquoteright}s concordance correlation coefficient < 0.90) at baseline. The model predicted slightly higher QALYs gained when using EQ-5D-3L over QLU-C10D-derived utilities (1.87 vs 1.74, respectively). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US\$30.5K when using EQ-5D-3L utilities, compared to US\$32.7K when using QLU-C10D utilities. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the two sets of utilities were almost indistinguishable. Conclusion: This study supports the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument in immunotherapy treated metastatic melanoma, and found no additional benefit for using the disease-specific QLU-C10D when using Australian weights.",

author = "Hansoo Kim and Greg Cook and Stephen Goodall and Danny Liew",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

day = "23",

doi = "10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

pages = "459--467",

journal = "PharmacoEconomics - Open",

issn = "2509-4262",

publisher = "Adis",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysis

AU - Kim, Hansoo

AU - Cook, Greg

AU - Goodall, Stephen

AU - Liew, Danny

PY - 2021/9/23

Y1 - 2021/9/23

N2 - Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate. Objective: This study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure–Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Methods: Quality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures. Results: Mean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson’s correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient < 0.90) at baseline. The model predicted slightly higher QALYs gained when using EQ-5D-3L over QLU-C10D-derived utilities (1.87 vs 1.74, respectively). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$30.5K when using EQ-5D-3L utilities, compared to US$32.7K when using QLU-C10D utilities. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the two sets of utilities were almost indistinguishable. Conclusion: This study supports the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument in immunotherapy treated metastatic melanoma, and found no additional benefit for using the disease-specific QLU-C10D when using Australian weights.

AB - Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate. Objective: This study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure–Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Methods: Quality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures. Results: Mean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson’s correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient < 0.90) at baseline. The model predicted slightly higher QALYs gained when using EQ-5D-3L over QLU-C10D-derived utilities (1.87 vs 1.74, respectively). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$30.5K when using EQ-5D-3L utilities, compared to US$32.7K when using QLU-C10D utilities. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves based on the two sets of utilities were almost indistinguishable. Conclusion: This study supports the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument in immunotherapy treated metastatic melanoma, and found no additional benefit for using the disease-specific QLU-C10D when using Australian weights.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85105121832

U2 - 10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8

DO - 10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8

M3 - Article

SN - 2509-4262

VL - 5

SP - 459

EP - 467

JO - PharmacoEconomics - Open

JF - PharmacoEconomics - Open

IS - 3

ER -

Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in metastatic melanoma using cost-utility analysis

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this