A French Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L

Luiz Flavio Andrade, Kristina Ludwig, Juan Manuel Ramos Goni, Mark Oppe, Gérard de Pouvourville, Luiz Flavio Andrade, Kristina Ludwig, Juan Manuel Ramos Goni, Mark Oppe, Gérard de Pouvourville

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a French value set for the EQ-5D-5L, for academic and clinical research, and for regulatory requirements for price-setting of drugs and medical devices.

Method: This study used the standardized valuation protocol developed by EuroQol, using computer-assisted personal interview software. A representative sample of 1048 French residents were interviewed by a market research company, under the supervision of the research team. Health states were valued using composite time trade-off and a discrete choice experiment. Modeling was used to create values for the 3125 possible health states. The composite time trade-off data were modeled using a Tobit model with censored observations at -1 and correcting for heteroscedasticity. A conditional logit model was used for the discrete choice results, and both models were combined using a hybrid model. An adjusted hybrid model was tested to correct for imbalance in the sample on age and sex compared with the general population. A comparison with the 3-level (3L) value set was performed.

Results: The adjusted model was preferred to comply with the representativeness of the general population. It provided a value set for which all coefficients were logically consistent. Values ranged from - 0.525 to 1. The distribution of values presented a shift towards higher values versus the 3L value set. Ranking of dimensions changed. Pain and discomfort and mobility were the dimensions with the highest potential for disutility compared with mobility and self-care for the 3L instrument.

Conclusions: This study provides a value set based on societal preferences of the French population, using an improved descriptive instrument of health-related quality-of-life health states. It will contribute to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analysis in the French context and help stimulate disease-specific quality-of-life references for academic-, institutional-, and industry-promoted studies.

Conflict of interest statement

Gérard de Pouvourville was Full Professor at the ESSEC Business School at the time of this study. He has been, and is, a regular consultant for the funding companies, as a member of advisory boards on cost-effectiveness analyses. The ESSEC has also received funding to perform cost-effectiveness analysis. None of the existing funding has been related to developing value sets for quality-of-life questionnaires. The ESSEC is currently funded to perform a survey on the quality of life of French inflammatory bowel disease patients using EQ-5D-5L. The funding sources were Euroqol, Amgen, MSD, Janssen Cilag and Biogaran, through unrestricted research grants. Luiz Andrade was a research assistant at the time of the study and was employed by the ESSEC. He has no direct financial conflicts of interest. Kristina Ludwig worked as a freelancer for the EuroQol Research Foundation during the data collection phase of the study and has received research grants from the Foundation to conduct methodological research. She has received no direct payment from industrial sponsors for this study. As a collaborator of EuroQol and the main investigator of the German Value Set, she supports the EQ-5D-5L and the methodological choices made by the Foundation. Mark Oppe was an employee of the EuroQol Research Foundation at the time of the study, but now works for Axentiva Solutions, a consulting company based in Spain. He was a main contributor to the development of the EQ-5D-5L valuation methodology, specifically for the cTTO protocol, the Quality Control module, and the development of the hybrid methodology. Juan Manuel Ramos Goni is a member of EuroQol and founder of Axentiva Solutions. He has received no direct payment from industry sponsors for the French study. He also contributed to the development of the EQ-5D-5L valuation methodology, specifically for the development of the hybrid methodology.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Data collection process and quality control of interviewers
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparative distribution of age in the study and the general population [24]. 5L 5-level, M male, F female
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Geographical distribution of respondents (N = 1140)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Observed distribution of composite time trade-off values
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Mean TTO value, by level sum score. TTO time trade-off, SD standard deviation
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Scatterplot of predicted values of the a adjusted hybrid model versus cTTO, b DCE model versus cTTO, c adjusted hybrid model versus DCE, and d adjusted hybrid model versus observed values. cTTO composite time trade-off, DCE discrete choice experiment
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Compared Kernel distribution of values. 5L 5-level, 3L 3-level, FR French, L, 3L, and 5L crosswalk

References

    1. Decree n° 2012-1116, October 2, 2012, defining the health economics missions of the High Health Authority. French Republic Offical Gazette n° 0231, October 4 2012, page 15222, text n° 8. .
    1. Decision n°2013.0111/DC/SEESP, September 18, 2013: Collge of the High Health Authority relative to the significiant impact on expenditures for the National Sickness Fund triggering the need for an economic assessment of health products claiming an improvement/expected of Medical Serivce Rendered of I, II or III. .
    1. Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). Choices in methods for economic evaluation. Department of Economics and Public Health Assessment. Haute Autorité de Santé; Oct 2012. .
    1. Chevalier J, de Pouvourville G. Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(1):57–66. doi: 10.1007/s10198-011-0351-x.
    1. Costet N, Le Galès C, Buron C, Kinkor F, Mesbath M, et al. French cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Indexes mark 2 (HUI2) and 3 (HUI3) classification systems. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:245–256. doi: 10.1023/A:1008830115246.
    1. Le Gales C, Buron C, Costet N, Rosman C, Slama G. Développement d’un index d’états de santé par les utilités en population française: le Health Utilities Index. Economie et prévision. 2001;150–1(4–5):71–87.
    1. Hamers FF, Ghabri S, Le Gales C. Health-state utility estimates for health technology assessment: a review of the manufacturers’ submissions to the French National Authority for Health. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(5):489–494. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2017.1289088.
    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;36:675–697. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8.
    1. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007;45:259–263. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81.
    1. Janssen MF, Simon Pickard A, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:1717–1727. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.
    1. Agborsangaya BC, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(74):4.
    1. Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:171. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8.
    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. Stolk Elly, Ludwig Kristina, Rand Kim, van Hout Ben, Ramos-Goñi Juan Manuel. Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol. Value in Health. 2019;22(1):23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010.
    1. Commission for Health Economics and Public Health Assessments (CEESP). Minutes of Tuesday, June 13, 2017 session. .
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
    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 Number 17003, October 2017. .
    1. Janssen Bas M. F., Oppe Mark, Versteegh Matthijs M., Stolk Elly A. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2013;14(S1):5–13. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2.
    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;20:348–361. doi: 10.1002/hec.1596.
    1. Wong E, Shah K, Cheung AWL, Wong AYK, Visser M, Stolk E. Evaluation of split version and feedback module on the improvement of time trade-off data. Value Health. 2018;21(6):732–741. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.013.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJV, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2016;20:466–473. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012.
    1. Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, Cabasés JM, Serrano-Aguilar P, et al. 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-Goñi JM, Craig B, Oppe M, van Hout B. Combining continuous and dichotomous responses in a hybrid model. 2016. EuroQol Working Paper Series #16002.
    1. National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSSE). Total population age and sex, January 1st, 2018. .
    1. Herdman M., Gudex C., Lloyd A., Janssen MF., Kind P., Parkin D., Bonsel G., Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Quality of Life Research. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Ludwig Kristina, Graf von der Schulenburg J.-Matthias, Greiner Wolfgang. German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(6):663–674. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8.
    1. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2017;27(1):7–22. doi: 10.1002/hec.3564.
    1. Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers S, Ardine de Wit, Prenger R, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19:343-352.
    1. Hobbins A, Barry L, Kelleher D, Shah K, Devlin N, Ramos Goni JM, 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. 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. Hernandez AM, Wailoo A, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value in Health. 2018;21(1):49–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir