Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 1155–1177 | Cite as

Comparison of quality of life measurements: EQ-5D-5L versus disease/treatment-specific measures in pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis

  • Ling-Hsiang ChuangEmail author
  • Alexander T. Cohen
  • Giancarlo Agnelli
  • Pearl D. Gumbs
  • Rupert Bauersachs
  • Sonja Kroep
  • Anselm K. Gitt
  • Manuel Monreal
  • Stefan N. Willich
  • Ben van Hout
Article

Abstract

Introduction

There is a lack of performance comparisons of the generic quality of life tool EQ-5D-5L against disease- and treatment-specific measures in venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of this study was to compare EQ-5D-5L against the pulmonary embolism (PE)-specific PEmb-QoL and the deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-specific VEINES-QOL/Sym, and PACT-Q2 (treatment-specific) questionnaires in five language settings.

Methods

PREFER in VTE was a non-interventional disease registry conducted between 2013 and 2014 in primary and secondary care across seven European countries with five languages, including English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. Consecutive patients with acute PE/DVT were enrolled and followed over 12 months. Only patients who completed all three questionnaires at baseline were included in the study sample. The psychometric properties examined included acceptability (missing, ceiling and floor effects), validity (convergent and known-groups validity), and responsiveness. Known groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using both effect size (Cohen’s d) and relative efficiency (F-statistic). All analyses were conducted in each language version and the total sample across all languages.

Results

A total of 1054 PE and 1537 DVT patients were included. 14% of PE and 10% of DVT patients had the maximum EQ-5D-5L index score. EQ-5D-5L was low to moderately correlated with other measures (r < 0.5). EQ-5D-5L was associated with larger effect size/relative efficiency in most of known group comparisons in both VTE groups. Similar results were observed for responsiveness. EQ-5D-5L performed relatively better in French, Italian and Spanish language versions.

Conclusion

Overall EQ-5D-5L is comparable to PEmb-QoL, VEINES-QOL/Sym and PACT-Q2 in terms of acceptability, validity and responsiveness in both PE and DVT populations in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish language version. Nevertheless, it should be noted that each measure is designed to capture different aspects of health-related quality of life.

Keywords

EQ-5D-5L Pulmonary embolism Deep vein thrombosis Venous thromboembolism PEmb-QoL VEINS-QOL/Sym PACT-Q2 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

L.H. Chuang, S. Kroep, and B. van Hout have served as consultants for Daiichi-Sankyo; A. Cohen, M. Monreal, S. Willich, A. Gitt, R. Bauersachs and G. Agnelli have received honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo for participating in the advisory committee; P Gumbs is an employee of Daiichi-Sankyo Europe GmbH.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Brook, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five level version according to two methods. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health, 11(2), 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 410–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometry properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1065–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agborsangaya, C. B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: Measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, T. H., Jo, M. W., Lee, S. I., Kim, S. H., & Chung, S. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2245–2253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinz, A., Kohlmann, T., Stobel-Rochter, Y., Zenger, M., & Brahler, E. (2014). The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: Psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Quality of Life Research, 23, 443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scalone, L., Coampichini, R., Fagiouli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D-3L with the new version EQ-5D-5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1707–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Buczek, J., Karlinska, A., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2014). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Buczek, J., Karlinska, A., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 24, 845–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garcia-Gordillo, M. A., Pozo-Cruz, B. D., Adsuar, J. C., Sanchez- Martinez, F. I., & Abelian-Perpinan, J. M. (2014). Validation and comparison of the 15-D and EQ-5D-5L instruments in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease population sample. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1315–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tran, B. X., Ohinmaa, A., & Nguyen, L. T. (2012). Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health and Quality of life Outcomes, 10, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agnelli, G., Gitt, A. K., Bauersachs, R., Fronk, E., Laeis, P., Mismetti, P., Monreal, M., Willich, S. N., Wolf, W., & Cohen, A. T. and on behalf of the PREFER in VTE investigators. (2015). The management of acute venous thromboembolism in clinical practice—study rationale and protocol of the European PREFER in VTE registry. Thrombosis Journal, 13, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen, A. T., et al. (2017). The management of acute venous thromboembolism in clinical practice. Results from the European PREFER in VTE Registry. Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 117, 1326–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Devlin, N., Shah, K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & Van Hout, B. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klok, F. A., Cohn, D. M., Middeldorp, S., Scharloo, M., Bu¨ ller H. R., van Kralingen, K. W., Kaptein, A. A., & Huisman, M. V. (2010). Quality of life after pulmonary embolism: Validation of the PEmb-QoL Questionnaire. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 8, 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahn, S. R., Lampingc, D. L., Ducrueta, T., Arsenaulta, L., Mirond, M. J., Roussind, A., Desmaraise, S., Joyald, F., Kassisd, J., Solymossb, S., Desjardinsf, L., & Johria, M., Shrier I., for the VETO Study investigators. (2006). VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire was a reliable and valid disease specific quality of life measure for deep venous thrombosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1049–1056.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prins, M. H., Guillemin, I., Gilet, H., Gabriel, S., Essers, B., & Raskob, G. and SR Kahn. (2009). Scoring and psychometric validation of the Perception of Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire (PACT-Q©). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fayers, P. M., M, D (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd edn.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang, F., Lau, T., Lee, E., Vathsala, A., Chia, K. S., & Luo, N. (2015). Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The European Journal of Health Economics, 16, 1019–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tavoly, M., Utne, K. K., Jelsness-Jørgensen, L.-P., et al. (2016). Health-related quality of life after pulmonary embolism: A cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal Open, 6, e013086.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brazier, J., Ratcilffe, J., Salomon, A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ling-Hsiang Chuang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexander T. Cohen
    • 2
  • Giancarlo Agnelli
    • 3
  • Pearl D. Gumbs
    • 4
  • Rupert Bauersachs
    • 5
  • Sonja Kroep
    • 1
  • Anselm K. Gitt
    • 6
  • Manuel Monreal
    • 7
  • Stefan N. Willich
    • 8
  • Ben van Hout
    • 9
  1. 1.Pharmerit InternationalRotterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  3. 3.University of PerugiaPerugiaItaly
  4. 4.Daiichi-Sankyo Europe GmbHMunichGermany
  5. 5.University of MainzMainzGermany
  6. 6.Herzzentrum LudwigshafenLudwigshafenGermany
  7. 7.Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I PujolBarcelonaSpain
  8. 8.Charité -Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  9. 9.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations