The EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study in Egypt

Sahar Al Shabasy, Maggie Abbassi, Aureliano Finch, Bram Roudijk, Darrin Baines, Samar Farid, Sahar Al Shabasy, Maggie Abbassi, Aureliano Finch, Bram Roudijk, Darrin Baines, Samar Farid

Abstract

Introduction: No value sets exist for either the EQ-5D-3L or the EQ-5D-5L in Egypt, despite local pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommending the use of the EQ-5D to derive utility. Most published Egyptian economic evaluation studies have used utility values from other published studies and systematic reviews.

Objective: Our objective was to develop an Egyptian EQ-5D-5L value set using the international EuroQol standardized protocol (EQ-VT-2.1). This study is a revision of a previous EQ-5D-5L value set for Egypt retracted by the authors.

Methods: Adult Egyptian participants were recruited from public places using multi-stratified quota sampling based on age, sex, and geographical distribution. Two elicitation techniques were applied: the composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete-choice experiments (DCEs). Before actual data collection, interviewers' performance was assessed in a pilot phase. Data were modelled using generalized least squares, Tobit, heteroskedastic, logit, and hybrid models, and the best fitting model was selected based on logical consistency of the parameters, significance level, prediction accuracy, and model parsimony.

Results: A total of 1378 interviews were conducted, of which 188 were excluded because they were incomplete and did not comply with the protocol, 216 were pilot interviews, and 974 were included in the final analysis. The heteroskedastic model with constraints (model 4) based on the cTTO data was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from - 0.964 for the worst health state (55555) to 1 for full health (11111) and 0.948 for 11211, with 1123 of all predicted health states (35.94%) being worse than dead. Mobility had the largest impact on health state preference values.

Conclusion: This is the first value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on social preferences obtained from a nationally representative sample in Egypt or any Arabic-speaking country. The value set can be used as a scoring system for economic evaluation and to improve the quality of health technology assessment in the Egyptian healthcare system.

Conflict of interest statement

Aureliano Finch and Bram Roudijk are members of the EuroQol Research Foundation (the copyright holder of the EQ-5D-5L). Sahar Al Shabasy, Maggie Abbassi, Darrin Baines, and Samar Farid have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Observed composite time trade-off (cTTO) value distribution
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean observed composite time trade-off (cTTO) values by level of sum scores. SD standard deviation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Scatterplots of the predicted values of the heteroskedastic model with constraints versus the mean observed values of composite time trade-off (cTTO) of each health state

References

    1. Brooks R, Group E EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
    1. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health. 2006;9(4):213–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x.
    1. Prosser L, Wittenberg E, editors. Trends in utility elicitation methods: is there still a role for direct elicitation? In: 32nd annual meeting of society for medical decision making, Toronto; 2010.
    1. Rabin R, Charro FD. EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–343. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.
    1. Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–1257. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8.
    1. Qian X, Tan RL-Y, Chuang L-H, Luo N. Measurement properties of commonly used generic preference-based measures in East and South-East Asia: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):159–170. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00854-w.
    1. Finch AP, Brazier JE, Mukuria C. What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(4):557–570. doi: 10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. The EQ-5D Instruments. 2020. . Accessed 2 Dec 2020.
    1. Janssen M, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–1727. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.
    1. Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–697. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8.
    1. Devlin N, Brazier J, Pickard AS, Stolk E. 3L, 5L, what the L? A NICE Conundrum. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):637–640. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0622-9.
    1. Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng Y-S. A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):645–661. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5.
    1. Kausch K. Egypt: inside-out. Geopolitics and democracy in the Middle East: FRIDE; 2015. pp. 21–34 c.
    1. Elsisi GH, Kaló Z, Eldessouki R, Elmahdawy MD, Saad A, Ragab S, et al. Recommendations for reporting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Egypt. Value Health Reg Issues. 2013;2(2):319–327. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2013.06.014.
    1. Elsisi G, Hassouna A, Taleb AA, Elmahdawy M, Ibrahim S. Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib in egyptian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from the health insurance perspective: a Markov model. Value Health. 2014;17(3):A90–A91. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.526.
    1. Elsisi G, Abdallah HM, Elmansy H. Economic evaluation of lidocaine/tetracaine patch versus lidocaine/prilocaine cream for topical anaesthesia before vascular access in Egypt. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A669. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2443.
    1. El-Hamamsy MH, Elsisi GH, Eldessouki R, Elmazar MM, Taha AS, Awad BF, et al. Economic evaluation of the combined use of warfarin and low-dose aspirin versus warfarin alone in mechanical valve prostheses. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(4):431–440. doi: 10.1007/s40258-016-0238-1.
    1. Elsisi GH, Eldessouki R, Kalo Z, Elmazar MM, Taha AS, Awad BF, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the combined use of warfarin and low-dose aspirin versus warfarin alone in Egyptian patients with aortic valve replacements: a Markov model. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;4C:24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2014.06.004.
    1. Hossam M, Elsisi G. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fidaxomicin versus oral vancomycin for the treatment of clostridium difficile infection in Egypt. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A513. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.964.
    1. Mostafa A, Elsisi GH. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of safety-engineered syringes in reducing HBV, HCV, and HIV burden in Egypt. Expert Rev Med Dev. 2019;16(2):155–163. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1561267.
    1. Al Shabasy SA, Abbassi MM, Finch AP, Baines D, Farid SF. RETRACTED ARTICLE: the EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Egypt. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(5):549–561. doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01002-z.
    1. Al Shabasy SA, Abbassi MM, Finch AP, Baines D, Farid SF. Retraction note to: the EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Egypt. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(8):971. doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01055-0.
    1. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.
    1. Xie F, Pickard AS, Krabbe PF, Revicki D, Viney R, Devlin N, et al. A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE) Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):867–877. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9.
    1. Oppe M, Van Hout B. The “power” of eliciting EQ-5D-5L values: the experimental design of the EQ-VT. EuroQol working paper series. 2017. p. 17003. . Accessed 10 May 2020.
    1. Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1.
    1. Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):348–361. doi: 10.1002/hec.1596.
    1. General Organization for Physical Planning. . Accessed 2 Apr 2018.
    1. Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics—CAPMAS. 2019. . Accessed 9 May 2019.
    1. Wong EL, Ramos-Goni JM, Cheung AW, Wong AY, Rivero-Arias O. Assessing the use of a feedback module to model EQ-5D-5L health states values in Hong Kong. Patient. 2018;11(2):235–247. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0278-0.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJ, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017;20(3):466–473. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabasés JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, Rivero-Arias O. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2017;55(7):e51–e58. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283.
    1. Ramos-Goni JM, Craig B, Oppe M, van Hout B. Combining continuous and dichotomous responses in a hybrid model. EuroQol working paper series. 2016, p. 16002. . Accessed 30 Apr 2020.
    1. Feng Y, Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Mulhern B, Hout B. New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to English data. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):23–38. doi: 10.1002/hec.3560.
    1. Mohamoud YA, Cuadros DF, Abu-Raddad LJ. Characterizing the copts in Egypt: demographic, socioeconomic and health indicators. Q Sci Connect. 2013 doi: 10.5339/connect.2013.22.
    1. Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):447–456. doi: 10.1002/hec.688.
    1. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811. doi: 10.1002/hec.1104.
    1. Alemu MH, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB, Jensen CL. Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ. 2013;54(3):333–359. doi: 10.1007/s10640-012-9597-8.
    1. Doherty E, Hobbins A, Whitehurst DG, O’Neill C. An exploration on attribute non-attendance using discrete choice experiment data from the Irish EQ-5D-5L National Valuation Study. PharmacoEconomics-Open. 2021;5(2):237–244. doi: 10.1007/s41669-020-00244-5.
    1. Pickard AS, Law EH, Jiang R, Pullenayegum E, Shaw JW, Xie F, et al. United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states using an international protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(8):931–941. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009.
    1. Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SM, De Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003.
    1. Luo N, Liu G, Li M, Guan H, Jin X, Rand-Hendriksen K. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health. 2017;20(4):662–669. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016.
    1. Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Garay OU, Gianneo O, Fernández G, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(2):323–333. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4.
    1. Kim S-H, Ahn J, Ock M, Shin S, Park J, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(7):1845–1852. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2.
    1. Rencz F, Brodszky V, Gulácsi L, Golicki D, Ruzsa G, Pickard AS, et al. Parallel valuation of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L by time trade-off in Hungary. Value Health. 2020;23(9):1235–1245. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.019.
    1. Purba FD, Hunfeld JA, Iskandarsyah A, Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(11):1153–1165. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9.
    1. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goñi JM, Tongsiri S, Ingsrisawang L, Teerawattananon Y. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(5):551–558. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574.
    1. Lin H-W, Li C-I, Lin F-J, Chang J-Y, Gau C-S, Luo N, et al. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L in Taiwan. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0209344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209344.
    1. Mai VQ, Sun S, Minh HV, Luo N, Giang KB, Lindholm L, et al. An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(7):1923–1933. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02469-7.
    1. Shafie AA, Thakumar AV, Lim CJ, Luo N, Rand-Hendriksen K, Yusof FAM. EQ-5D-5L valuation for the Malaysian population. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(5):715–725. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0758-7.
    1. Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S, Noto S, Igarashi A, Fukuda T, Saito S, et al. Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health. 2016;19(5):648–654. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834.
    1. Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Bansback N, Bryan S, Ohinmaa A, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447.
    1. Hobbins A, Barry L, Kelleher D, Shah K, Devlin N, Goni JMR, et al. Utility values for health states in Ireland: a value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(11):1345–1353. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0690-x.
    1. Welie AG, Gebretekle GB, Stolk E, Mukuria C, Krahn MD, Enquoselassie F, et al. Valuing health state: an EQ-5D-5L value set for Ethiopians. Value Health Reg Issues. 2020;22:7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.08.475.
    1. Andrade LF, Ludwig K, Goni JMR, Oppe M, de Pouvourville G. A French Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(4):413–425. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00876-4.
    1. Ferreira PL, Antunes P, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN, Ramos-Goñi JM. A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(12):3163–3175. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02226-5.
    1. Golicki D, Jakubczyk M, Graczyk K, Niewada M. Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states in Poland: the first EQ-VT-based study in Central and Eastern Europe. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(9):1165–1176. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00811-7.
    1. Ludwig K, von der Schulenburg J-MG, Greiner W. German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):663–674. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Craig BM, Oppe M, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Pinto-Prades JL, Luo N, et al. Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Health. 2018;21(5):596–604. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023.
    1. Chemli J, Drira C, Felfel H, Roudijk B, Al Sayah F, Kouki M, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life using a hybrid approach: Tunisian value set for the EQ-5D-3L. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(5):1445–1455. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02730-z.
    1. Bailey H, Kind P. Preliminary findings of an investigation into the relationship between national culture and EQ-5D value sets. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(8):1145–1154. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9678-5.
    1. Roudijk B, Donders ART, Stalmeier PF. Cultural values: can they explain differences in health utilities between countries? Med Decis Making. 2019;39(5):605–616. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19841587.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner