IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v5y2021i3d10.1007_s41669-021-00265-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hansoo Kim

    (Monash University)

  • Greg Cook

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb)

  • Stephen Goodall

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Danny Liew

    (Monash University)

Abstract

Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prefers the use of the generic EQ-5D instrument to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and recommends that condition-specific instruments only be used when EQ-5D data are not available or not appropriate. Objective This study aimed to compare the utility gain and cost-effectiveness results of using the generic EQ-5D-3L instrument to the condition-specific Quality-of-Life Utility Measure–Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) by applying both sets of values in a published cost-utility analysis (CUA) of immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma. Methods Quality-of-life data were drawn from a clinical study in which both QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L tools were used. The potential influence of the two instruments on cost-effectiveness was assessed using a three-state Markov model. Descriptive statistics and standard health economic outputs were compared between analyses that applied the two different utility measures. Results Mean baseline utility values as measured by the QLU-C10D (mean = 0.744, SD = 0.219) were not statistically different (p > 0.05) compared to values derived from EQ-5D-3L (mean = 0.735, SD = 0.239). The two instruments were correlated (Pearson’s correlation = 0.74); however, concordance was low (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient

Suggested Citation

  • Hansoo Kim & Greg Cook & Stephen Goodall & Danny Liew, 2021. "Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 459-467, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00265-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-021-00265-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen-Wei Pan & Jun-Yi He & Yan-Bo Zhu & Chun-Hua Zhao & Nan Luo & Pei Wang, 2023. "Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 885-893, August.
    2. Micha J. Pilz & Simon Seyringer & Lára R. Hallsson & Andrew Bottomley & Femke Jansen & Madeleine T. King & Richard Norman & Marianne J. Rutten & Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw & Peter D. Siersema & Eva Mar, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(9), pages 1539-1555, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00265-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.