Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a rare degenerative neuromuscular disorder with pediatric onset. Recent approvals in Duchenne have placed attention on the economic evaluation in pricing and reimbursement decisions across a range of rare conditions. We sought to assess the appropriateness of the EQ-5D, a common measure of generic health state utility, for use among patients and caregivers affected by Duchenne.
Methods
An international, cross-sectional sample of adults with Duchenne and caregivers reported patient health status using self- or proxy-reported EQ-5D-3L. Appropriateness was assessed across 6 domains of concern raised by stakeholders in Duchenne. These concerns were that the EQ-5D/EQ-VAS would not capture meaningful differences in health status, correlate with disease-specific measures, reflect real health status, exhibit face validity, be accurately interpreted, and be low burden. We evaluated these concerns by comparing EQ-5D index score and EQ-VAS scores to other condition-specific functional measures and open- and closed-ended questions.
Results
In total, 263 participants (74% response) completed the survey, 24% of whom were adult patients. Most participants lived in the United States or United Kingdom (58%). Patient age ranged from 1 to 48 y. EQ-5D index was higher in ambulatory than nonambulatory patients (0.60 v. 0.30, P < 0.001) and was negatively correlated with upper limb impairment (r = 0.61, P < 0.001). Three-quarters of respondents agreed that EQ-5D measured real health status (74%). Most respondents interpreted EQ-VAS anchors of best and worst imaginable health as full health (61%) and death/near death (58%). Respondents indicated the EQ-5D was easy to understand (86%) and answer (71%).
Conclusions
Contrary to anecdotal concerns, we found support for the appropriateness of EQ-5D to assess health status in Duchenne. While other measures may be more sensitive to specific outcomes in Duchenne, there may be some value in results using the EQ-5D measure.
BushbyKFinkelRBirnjrantD, et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 2: implementation of multidisciplinary care. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(2):177–89.
2.
BushbyKFinkelRBirnkrantD, et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and pharmacological and psychosocial management. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(1):77–93.
3.
EmeryAEMuntoniFQuinlivanRC.Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
4.
MendellJRShillingCLeslieN, et al. Evidence-based path to newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Ann Neurol. 2012;71(3):304–13.
5.
RyderSLeadleyRArmstrongN, et al. The burden, epidemiology, costs and treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: an evidence review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):79.
6.
HollinILPeayHFischerRJanssenEBridgesJ. Engaging patients and caregivers in prioritizing symptoms impacting quality of life for Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(9):2261–73.
7.
FurlongPBridgesJCharnasL, et al. How a patient advocacy group developed the first proposed draft guidance document for industry for submission to the US Food and Drug Administration. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10(1):82.
8.
BridgesJFTsaiJJanssenECrossnohereNFischerRPeayH. How do members of the Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy community perceive a discrete-choice experiment incorporating uncertain treatment benefit? An application of research as an event. Patient. 2019;12(2):247–57.
9.
HollinIPeayHBridgesJ.Caregiver preferences for emerging Duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments: a comparison of best-worst scaling and conjoint analysis. Patient. 2015;8(1):19–27.
10.
HollinIL, et al. Patient-centered benefit-risk assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2017;55(5):626–34.
11.
PeayHHollinIBridgesJ.Prioritizing parental worry associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy using best-worst scaling. J Genet Counsel. 2016;25(2):305–13.
12.
PeayHPeayHApkonABridgesJ. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–637.
13.
PaquinRSFischerRMansfieldC, et al. Priorities when deciding on participation in early-phase gene therapy trials for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a best-worst scaling experiment in caregivers and adult patients. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):102.
14.
AustinCPCurilloCLauL, et al. Future of rare diseases research 2017–2027: an IRDiRC perspective. Clin Transl Sci. 2018;11(1):21.
CrossnohereNLFischerRCrossleyEVroomEBridgesJ. The evolution of patient-focused drug development and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;20(1):57–68.
17.
BrazierJRobertsJTsuchiyaABusschbachJ. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.
18.
LongworthLYangYYoungT, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224.
19.
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-3L User Guide. EuroQol Research Foundation; 2018. Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
20.
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide. EuroQol Research Foundation; 2019. Rotterdam, The Netherlands
21.
PietersmaSde VriesMvan den Akker-vanME.Domains of quality of life: results of a three-stage Delphi consensus procedure among patients, family of patients, clinicians, scientists and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(5):1543–56.
22.
TordrupDMossmanJKanavosP.Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: is the patient experience adequately represented?Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):10–9.
23.
DolanPDolanPLeeHKingDMetcalfeR. How does NICE value health?BMJ. 2009;339(7717):371–3.
24.
BannCMAbreschRBieseckerB, et al. Measuring quality of life in muscular dystrophy. Neurology. 2015;84(10):1034–42.
25.
ToshJBrazierJEvansPLongworthL. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15(1):118–27.
26.
EfthymiadouOMossmanJKanavosP.Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients. Health Policy. 2019;123(2):159–65.
27.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199.
28.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
29.
GriebschICoastJBrownJ.Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005;115(5):e600–14.
30.
ProsserLAHammittJKKerenR.Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(9):713–26.
31.
OppeMRand-HendriksenKShahKRamon-GoniJLuoN. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.
32.
KlimekLBergmanKBiedermannT, et al. Visual analogue scales (VAS): measuring instruments for the documentation of symptoms and therapy monitoring in cases of allergic rhinitis in everyday health care. Allergo J Int. 2017;26(1):16–24.
33.
KlingelsKMayhewAMazzoneE, et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for upper limb function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: DMD Upper Limb PROM. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59(2):224–31.
34.
MayhewAMazzoneEEagleM, et al. Development of the Performance of the Upper Limb module for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(11):1038–45.
35.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Bethesda, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
36.
ReeveBBWyrwichKWuA, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(8):1889–905.
37.
StreinerDLNormanGR.Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to the Their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.
38.
US Food and Drug Administration. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Related Dystrophinopathies: Developing Drugs for Treatment Guidance for Industry. Bethesda, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2018.
39.
RichardsonDRCrossnohereNSeoJ, et al. Age at diagnosis and patient preferences for treatment outcomes in AML: a discrete choice experiment to explore meaningful benefits. Cancer Epidemiol Prevent Biomarkers. 2020;29(5):942–8.
40.
SchoenbornNLCrossnohereNJanssenE, et al. Examining generalizability of older adults’ preferences for discussing cessation of screening colonoscopies in older adults with low health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(11):2512–9.
41.
JeongHLeeW.The level of collapse we are allowed: comparison of different response scales in Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Biom Biostat Int J. 2016;4(4):00100.
42.
MokkinkLBTerweeCKnolD, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):22.
43.
MokkinkLBTerweeCPatrickD, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.
44.
RoyalK.“Face validity” is not a legitimate type of validity evidence!Am J Surg. 2016;212(5):1026–7.
45.
PangBLeeL.Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations Trends Info Retrieval. 2008;2(1–2):1–135.
46.
OosterhavenJAFOfenlochRFSchuttelaarMLA. Interpretability of the quality of life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140(4):785–90.
47.
SchillingerDBindmanAWangFStewartAPietteJ. Functional health literacy and the quality of physician–patient communication among diabetes patients. Patient Educ Counsel. 2004;52(3):315–23.
48.
UlrichCMWallenGFeisterAGradyC. Respondent burden in clinical research: when are we asking too much of subjects?IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2005;27(4):17–20.
49.
ThompsonBKyrillidouMCookC.Item sampling in service quality assessment surveys to improve response rates and reduce respondent burden. Performance Measurement Metrics. 2009;10(1):6–16.
50.
LandfeldtELindgrenPBellC, et al. The burden of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: an international, cross-sectional study. Neurology. 2014;83(6):529–36.
51.
BrazierJDeverillM.A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 1999;8(1):41–51.
52.
NeumannPJGoldieSJWeinsteinMC.Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.
53.
DrummondMFSculpherMClaxtonKStoddartGTorranceG. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.
54.
XinYMcIntoshE.Assessment of the construct validity and responsiveness of preference-based quality of life measures in people with Parkinson’s: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(1):1–23.
55.
MulhernBMukuriaCBarkhamMKnappMByfordSBrazierJ, et al. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(3):236–43.
56.
FinchAPBrazierJEMukuriaC.What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(4):557–70.
57.
BrazierJERowenDMavranezouliIet al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment. 2012; 16(32).
58.
KuspinarAMayoNE.A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(8):759–73.
59.
MokkinkLBDe VetHPrinsenC, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.
60.
PrinsenCACMokkinkLBouterL, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.
61.
TerweeCBPrinsenCChiarottoA, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70.
62.
PowellPACarltonJWoodsHMazzoneP. Measuring quality of life in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review of the content and structural validity of commonly used instruments. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):1–26.
63.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Bethesda, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
64.
The Orphan Drug Act, in 21 U.S.C. ch. 9, subch. V § 360aa–360ee. 1983.
65.
GammieTLuCYBabarZU.Access to orphan drugs: a comprehensive review of legislations, regulations and policies in 35 countries. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140002.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
