{"title":"比较EQ-5D-5L和SF-6Dv2与qu - c10d在血液学癌症患者中的应用。","authors":"Tiantian Zhang, Aixue Zhang, Jing Li, Fangyu Li, Peng Liu, Pei Wang","doi":"10.1007/s10198-025-01815-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the measurement properties between EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 and QLU-C10D utilities, and to assess the implications of their adoption in QALY estimation in hematologic cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Longitudinal data of Chinese lymphoma and myeloma patients were adopted. Utility scores of the three instruments were calculated based on a variety of country-specific value sets. Their measurement properties including convergent validity, known-group validity, sensitivity, and responsiveness were compared. With-in group change in utilities derived from the instruments were also generated and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 200 lymphoma and 139 myeloma patients were enrolled at baseline; and 78 and 89 of them were followed up, respectively. The three kinds of utilities showed similar convergent validity; but all had restricted known-group validity. All of them could identify meaningful changes in clinical status; while whether QLU-C10D utilities was more responsive and yielded larger utility change were closely related to the value sets adopted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It appears that the advantages of QLU-C10D over EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 were not so obvious, and it may not necessarily produce more QALY gains as well. The choice of utility value set played an important role in the two aspects.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utilities with QLU-C10D utilities in hematologic cancer patients.\",\"authors\":\"Tiantian Zhang, Aixue Zhang, Jing Li, Fangyu Li, Peng Liu, Pei Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10198-025-01815-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the measurement properties between EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 and QLU-C10D utilities, and to assess the implications of their adoption in QALY estimation in hematologic cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Longitudinal data of Chinese lymphoma and myeloma patients were adopted. Utility scores of the three instruments were calculated based on a variety of country-specific value sets. Their measurement properties including convergent validity, known-group validity, sensitivity, and responsiveness were compared. With-in group change in utilities derived from the instruments were also generated and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 200 lymphoma and 139 myeloma patients were enrolled at baseline; and 78 and 89 of them were followed up, respectively. The three kinds of utilities showed similar convergent validity; but all had restricted known-group validity. All of them could identify meaningful changes in clinical status; while whether QLU-C10D utilities was more responsive and yielded larger utility change were closely related to the value sets adopted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It appears that the advantages of QLU-C10D over EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 were not so obvious, and it may not necessarily produce more QALY gains as well. The choice of utility value set played an important role in the two aspects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01815-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01815-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utilities with QLU-C10D utilities in hematologic cancer patients.
Objectives: To compare the measurement properties between EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 and QLU-C10D utilities, and to assess the implications of their adoption in QALY estimation in hematologic cancer patients.
Method: Longitudinal data of Chinese lymphoma and myeloma patients were adopted. Utility scores of the three instruments were calculated based on a variety of country-specific value sets. Their measurement properties including convergent validity, known-group validity, sensitivity, and responsiveness were compared. With-in group change in utilities derived from the instruments were also generated and compared.
Results: A total of 200 lymphoma and 139 myeloma patients were enrolled at baseline; and 78 and 89 of them were followed up, respectively. The three kinds of utilities showed similar convergent validity; but all had restricted known-group validity. All of them could identify meaningful changes in clinical status; while whether QLU-C10D utilities was more responsive and yielded larger utility change were closely related to the value sets adopted.
Conclusion: It appears that the advantages of QLU-C10D over EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 were not so obvious, and it may not necessarily produce more QALY gains as well. The choice of utility value set played an important role in the two aspects.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics:
• Basics of health economic approaches and methods
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Health Care Systems
• Pricing and Reimbursement Systems
• Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
