Mapping the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Onto EQ-5D-3L in Heart Failure Patients: Results for the Japanese and UK Value Sets.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2020-12-07 eCollection Date: 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1177/2381468320971606
Matthias Hunger, Jennifer Eriksson, Stephane A Regnier, Katsuya Mori, John A Spertus, Joaquim Cristino
{"title":"Mapping the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Onto EQ-5D-3L in Heart Failure Patients: Results for the Japanese and UK Value Sets.","authors":"Matthias Hunger,&nbsp;Jennifer Eriksson,&nbsp;Stephane A Regnier,&nbsp;Katsuya Mori,&nbsp;John A Spertus,&nbsp;Joaquim Cristino","doi":"10.1177/2381468320971606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> Health technology assessment bodies in several countries, including Japan and the United Kingdom, recommend mapping techniques to obtain utility scores in clinical trials that do not have a preference-based measure of health. This study sought to develop mapping algorithms to predict EQ-5D-3L scores from the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in patients with heart failure (HF). <b>Methods.</b> Data from the randomized, double-blind PARADIGM-HF trial were analyzed, and EQ-5D-3L scores were calculated using the Japanese and UK value sets. Several different model specifications were explored to best fit EQ-5D data collected at baseline with KCCQ scores, including ordinary least square regression, two-part, Tobit, and three-part models. Generalized estimating equations models were also fitted to analyze longitudinal EQ-5D data. To validate model predictions, the data set was split into a derivation (<i>n</i> = 4,465) from which the models were developed and a separate sample (<i>n</i> = 1,892) for validation. <b>Results.</b> There were only small differences between the different model classes tested. Model performance and predictive power was better for the item-level models than for the models including KCCQ domain scores. <i>R</i> <sup>2</sup> statistics for the item-level models ranged from 0.45 to 0.52. Mean absolute error in the validation sample was 0.10 for the models using the Japanese value set and 0.114 for the UK models. All models showed some underprediction of utility above 0.75 and overprediction of utility below 0.5, but performed well for population-level estimates. <b>Conclusions.</b> Using data from a large clinical trial in HF, we found that EQ-5D-3L scores can be estimated from responses to the KCCQ and can facilitate cost-utility analysis from existing HF trials where only the KCCQ was administered. Future validation in other HF populations is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"5 2","pages":"2381468320971606"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468320971606","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468320971606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background. Health technology assessment bodies in several countries, including Japan and the United Kingdom, recommend mapping techniques to obtain utility scores in clinical trials that do not have a preference-based measure of health. This study sought to develop mapping algorithms to predict EQ-5D-3L scores from the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in patients with heart failure (HF). Methods. Data from the randomized, double-blind PARADIGM-HF trial were analyzed, and EQ-5D-3L scores were calculated using the Japanese and UK value sets. Several different model specifications were explored to best fit EQ-5D data collected at baseline with KCCQ scores, including ordinary least square regression, two-part, Tobit, and three-part models. Generalized estimating equations models were also fitted to analyze longitudinal EQ-5D data. To validate model predictions, the data set was split into a derivation (n = 4,465) from which the models were developed and a separate sample (n = 1,892) for validation. Results. There were only small differences between the different model classes tested. Model performance and predictive power was better for the item-level models than for the models including KCCQ domain scores. R 2 statistics for the item-level models ranged from 0.45 to 0.52. Mean absolute error in the validation sample was 0.10 for the models using the Japanese value set and 0.114 for the UK models. All models showed some underprediction of utility above 0.75 and overprediction of utility below 0.5, but performed well for population-level estimates. Conclusions. Using data from a large clinical trial in HF, we found that EQ-5D-3L scores can be estimated from responses to the KCCQ and can facilitate cost-utility analysis from existing HF trials where only the KCCQ was administered. Future validation in other HF populations is warranted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

将堪萨斯城心肌病问卷(KCCQ)映射到心衰患者的EQ-5D-3L上:日本和英国值集的结果
背景。包括日本和联合王国在内的几个国家的卫生技术评估机构建议采用绘图技术,以便在没有基于偏好的健康衡量标准的临床试验中获得效用分数。本研究旨在开发映射算法来预测心衰(HF)患者的堪萨斯城心肌病问卷(KCCQ)中的EQ-5D-3L评分。方法。分析随机双盲PARADIGM-HF试验的数据,并使用日本和英国的值集计算EQ-5D-3L评分。研究了几种不同的模型规格,以最佳地拟合基线收集的EQ-5D数据与KCCQ分数,包括普通最小二乘回归,两部分,Tobit和三部分模型。采用广义估计方程模型对EQ-5D纵向数据进行分析。为了验证模型预测,数据集被分成一个推导(n = 4,465)和一个单独的样本(n = 1,892)来验证模型。结果。在测试的不同模型类别之间只有很小的差异。项目层次模型的模型性能和预测能力优于包含KCCQ领域分数的模型。项目水平模型的r2统计量在0.45 ~ 0.52之间。验证样本中使用日本值集的模型的平均绝对误差为0.10,使用英国模型的平均绝对误差为0.114。所有模型都对0.75以上的效用有过低预测,对0.5以下的效用有过高预测,但对人口水平的估计表现良好。结论。利用一项大型心力衰竭临床试验的数据,我们发现EQ-5D-3L评分可以通过对KCCQ的反应来估计,并且可以促进对仅使用KCCQ的现有心力衰竭试验的成本-效用分析。未来在其他心衰人群中的验证是有必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信