nach oben

Erschienen in:

18.12.2015

Discrepancies between the Dermatology Life Quality Index and utility scores

verfasst von: Fanni Rencz, Petra Baji, László Gulácsi, Sarolta Kárpáti, Márta Péntek, Adrienn Katalin Poór, Valentin Brodszky

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 7/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

In many jurisdictions, deterioration in quality of life assessed with Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is used for medical and reimbursement decisions in various dermatological conditions such as psoriasis. However, utility values for health states defined by the DLQI have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, we aim to estimate utilities for different health states described by the ten items of the DLQI.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was performed in a convenience sample of the general population. Seven DLQI health states with total scores of 6, 11 and 16 (3–3 and 1 states, respectively) were developed. All of them were different from each other in the number of affected items and severity levels of impairment. The 10-year time trade-off method was used to value health states.

Results

Mean utilities elicited by the respondents (n = 308) for the three 6-, three 11- and one 16-point DLQI health states were 0.62–0.75, 0.59–0.66, and 0.56, respectively. In half of the six pairwise comparisons, where health states with the same total DLQI score were compared, significant difference between utilities was found. In eight out of the 15 comparisons between health states with different DLQI scores, utilities were not significantly different.

Conclusions

Utility values for health states with identical DLQI total score may significantly vary. This result might be generalisable to various patient populations, in which the DLQI is used; nevertheless, further research is needed. The discrepancies between DLQI scores and utilities might have an impact on medical and reimbursement decisions as they make the utility gain from treatment uncertain.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Finlay, A. Y., & Khan, G. K. (1994). Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): A simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, 19(3), 210–216.CrossRefPubMed

Basra, M. K., Fenech, R., Gatt, R. M., Salek, M. S., & Finlay, A. Y. (2008). The Dermatology Life Quality Index 1994–2007: A comprehensive review of validation data and clinical results. British Journal of Dermatology, 159(5), 997–1035. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08832.x.PubMed

European Medicines Agency. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products indicated for the treatment of psoriasis. London, 18 November 2004. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003329.pdf. Accessed: 02 July 2015.

Mrowietz, U., Kragballe, K., Reich, K., Spuls, P., Griffiths, C. E., Nast, A., et al. (2011). Definition of treatment goals for moderate to severe psoriasis: a European consensus. Archives of Dermatological Research, 303(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/s00403-010-1080-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pathirana, D., Ormerod, A. D., Saiag, P., Smith, C., Spuls, P. I., Nast, A., et al. (2009). European S3-guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 23(Suppl 2), 1–70. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03389.x.CrossRefPubMed

Hagg, D., Sundstrom, A., Eriksson, M., & Schmitt-Egenolf, M. (2015). Decision for biological treatment in real life is more strongly associated with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) than with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 29(3), 452–456. doi:10.1111/jdv.12576.CrossRefPubMed

Wakkee, M., Thio, H. B., Spuls, P. I., de Jong, E. M., & Nijsten, T. (2008). Evaluation of the reimbursement criteria for biological therapies for psoriasis in the Netherlands. British Journal of Dermatology, 158(5), 1159–1161. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08512.x.CrossRefPubMed

Rencz, F., Kemény, L., Gajdácsi, J. Z., Owczarek, W., Arenberger, P., Tiplica, G. S., et al. (2015). Use of biologics for psoriasis in Central and Eastern European countries. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 29(11), 2222–2230.CrossRefPubMed

Basra, M. K., Chowdhury, M. M., Smith, E. V., Freemantle, N., & Piguet, V. (2012). Quality of life in psoriasis and chronic hand eczema: The discrepancy in the definition of severity in NICE guidelines and its implications. British Journal of Dermatology, 166(2), 462–463. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10601.x.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Finlay, A. Y., Basra, M. K., Piguet, V., & Salek, M. S. (2012). Dermatology life quality index (DLQI): A paradigm shift to patient-centered outcomes. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 132(10), 2464–2465. doi:10.1038/jid.2012.147.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mazzotti, E., Barbaranelli, C., Picardi, A., Abeni, D., & Pasquini, P. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in 900 Italian patients with psoriasis. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 85(5), 409–413. doi:10.1080/00015550510032832.

12.

Nijsten, T. (2012). Dermatology life quality index: Time to move forward. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 132(1), 11–13. doi:10.1038/jid.2011.354.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Nijsten, T., Meads, D. M., de Korte, J., Sampogna, F., Gelfand, J. M., Ongenae, K., et al. (2007). Cross-cultural inequivalence of dermatology-specific health-related quality of life instruments in psoriasis patients. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 127(10), 2315–2322. doi:10.1038/sj.jid.5700875.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Nijsten, T., Meads, D. M., & McKenna, S. P. (2006). Dimensionality of the dermatology life quality index (DLQI): A commentary. Acta Derm Venereol, 86(3), 284–285; author reply 285–286. doi:10.2340/00015555-0075.

15.

Twiss, J., Meads, D. M., Preston, E. P., Crawford, S. R., & McKenna, S. P. (2012). Can we rely on the Dermatology Life Quality Index as a measure of the impact of psoriasis or atopic dermatitis? Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 132(1), 76–84. doi:10.1038/jid.2011.238.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hongbo, Y., Thomas, C. L., Harrison, M. A., Salek, M. S., & Finlay, A. Y. (2005). Translating the science of quality of life into practice: What do dermatology life quality index scores mean? Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 125(4), 659–664. doi:10.1111/j.0022-202X.2005.23621.x.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Basra, M. K., Salek, M. S., Camilleri, L., Sturkey, R., & Finlay, A. Y. (2015). Determining the minimal clinically important difference and responsiveness of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): Further data. Dermatology, 230(1), 27–33. doi:10.1159/000365390.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Stalmeier, P. F., Goldstein, M. K., Holmes, A. M., Lenert, L., Miyamoto, J., Stiggelbout, A. M., et al. (2001). What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Medical Decision Making, 21(3), 200–207.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. (2006). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2015.

20.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf. Accessed 23 June 2015.

21.

Siegel, J. E., Torrance, G. W., Russell, L. B., Luce, B. R., Weinstein, M. C., & Gold, M. R. (1997). Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics, 11(2), 159–168.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., & Yang, Y. (2014). Modeling a preference-based index for two condition-specific measures (asthma and overactive bladder) using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Value Health, 17(4), 406–415. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.002.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Lloyd, A., Kerr, C., Breheny, K., Brazier, J., Ortiz, A., & Borg, E. (2014). Economic evaluation in short bowel syndrome (SBS): An algorithm to estimate utility scores for a patient-reported SBS-specific quality of life scale (SBS-QoL). Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 449–458. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0516-4.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mukuria, C., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Young, T. A., & Nafees, B. (2015). Deriving a preference-based measure for myelofibrosis from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the MF-SAF. Value Health, 18(6), 846–855. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.07.004.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Rowen, D., Mulhern, B., Banerjee, S., Hout, B., Young, T. A., Knapp, M., et al. (2012). Estimating preference-based single index measures for dementia using DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy. Value Health, 15(2), 346–356. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.10.016.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Gudex, C. (1994). Time trade-off user manual: Props and self-completion methods. York: Report of the Centre for Health Economics. University of York.

28.

Chen, S. C., Bayoumi, A. M., Soon, S. L., Aftergut, K., Cruz, P., Sexton, S. A., et al. (2004). A catalog of dermatology utilities: a measure of the burden of skin diseases. Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings, 9(2), 160–168. doi:10.1046/j.1087-0024.2003.09112.x.CrossRef

29.

Hernandez Alava, M., Wailoo, A. J., & Ara, R. (2012). Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health, 15(3), 550–561. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.014.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Lehman, E. (2007). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks. New York: Springer.

31.

Burstrom, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2006). A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy, 76(3), 359–370. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.06.011.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Dolan, P. (1999). Whose preferences count? Medical Decision Making, 19(4), 482–486.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12(6), 599–607.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Discrepancies between the Dermatology Life Quality Index and utility scores
verfasst von: Fanni Rencz
Petra Baji
László Gulácsi
Sarolta Kárpáti
Márta Péntek
Adrienn Katalin Poór
Valentin Brodszky
Publikationsdatum: 18.12.2015
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1208-z

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Discrepancies between the Dermatology Life Quality Index and utility scores

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2016

Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study

Satisfaction with life in adults with Marfan syndrome (MFS): associations with health-related consequences of MFS, pain, fatigue, and demographic factors

Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D

On the effect of adding clinical samples to validation studies of patient-reported outcome item banks: a simulation study

Known-groups validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) in adolescents and young adults with special healthcare needs

The association between social network factors and mental health at different life stages