Health utility measurement for people living with HIV/AIDS under combined antiretroviral therapy: A comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D.
Health utility measurement for people living with HIV/AIDS under combined antiretroviral therapy: A comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/md.0000000000031666
复制
发表时间：
2022-11-11
期刊：
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
我们比较了EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D效用评分在艾滋病病毒感染者/艾滋病患者（PLWHIV）中的区分效度、一致性和敏感性。我们对云南省9个直辖市18岁以上的艾滋病病毒感染者进行了横断面调查。入组了便利样本。我们使用SF-12和EQ-5D-5L测量健康相关生活质量。SF-6D的效用指数源自SF-12。我们计算相关系数来评价2种仪器的相关性和一致性。为了评价EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D的同质性，计算并绘制了组内相关系数、散点图和Bland-Altman图。我们还使用了受试者工作特征曲线来比较计量经济指标的判别特性和敏感性。共有1797名受访者接受了采访，平均年龄为45.6 ± 11.7岁。 EQ-5D-5L评分的分布偏向完全健康，偏度为-3.316。EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D指数评分之间的总体相关性为0.46（P <.001）。 2个尺度的关联在上端出现较强。EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D之间的组内相关系数为0.59，意味着中度相关，表明总体一致。Bland-Altman图显示的结果与散点图相同。受试者工作特征曲线显示SF-6D的AUC为0.776（95% CI：0.757，0.796），EQ-5D-5L为0.732（95% CI：0.712，0.752），SF-6D和EQ-5D-5L分别为0.782（95% CI：0.763，0.802）和0.690（95% CI：0.669，0.711）。我们的研究证明了EQ-5D-5L和SF-6D指数评分在衡量艾滋病毒/艾滋病患者健康效用方面的表现。他们的表现有显著差异。我们倾向于应用SF-6D来衡量艾滋病病毒感染者在联合抗逆转录病毒治疗期间的健康效用。我们的研究已经证明了在联合抗逆转录病毒治疗下PLWHIV的工具选择和偏好测量的证据。
We compared the discriminative validity, agreement and sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHIV). We conducted a cross-sectional survey among PLWHIV aged more than 18 years old in 9 municipalities in Yunnan Province, China. A convenience sample was enrolled. We administered the SF-12 and EQ-5D-5L to measure health-related quality of life. The utility index of the SF-6D was derived from the SF-12. We calculate correlation coefficients to evaluate the relationship and agreement of 2 instruments. To evaluate the homogeneity of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D, intraclass correlation coefficients, scatter plots, and Bland–Altman plots were computed and drawn. We also used receiver operating characteristic curves to compare the discriminative properties and sensitivity of the econometric index. A total of 1797 respondents, with a mean age of 45.6 ± 11.7 years, was interviewed. The distribution of EQ-5D-5L scores skewed towards full health with a skewness of −3.316. The overall correlation between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores was 0.46 (P < .001). The association of the 2 scales appeared stronger at the upper end. An intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.59 between the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D meant a moderate correlation and indicated general agreement. The Bland–Altman plot displayed the same results as the scatter plot. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the AUC for the SF-6D was 0.776 (95% CI: 0.757, 0.796) and that for the EQ-5D-5L was 0.732 (95% CI: 0.712, 0.752) by the PCS-12, and it was 0.782 (95% CI: 0.763, 0.802) for the SF-6D and 0.690 (95% CI: 0.669, 0.711) for the EQ-5D-5L by the MCS-12. Our study demonstrated evidence of the performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores to measure health utility in people living with HIV/AIDS. There were significant differences in their performance. We preferred to apply the SF-6D to measure the health utility of PLWHIV during the combined antiretroviral therapy period. Our study has demonstrated evidence for instrument choice and preference measurements in PLWHIV under combined antiretroviral therapy.