Search

Background: The EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) are preference-based measures used in cost-effectiveness studies. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference scoring system (PROPr) is a new preference-based measure. In addition, algorithms were previously developed to map PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH) items to HUI-3 using linear equating (HUILE) and 3-level EQ-5D using linear (EQ5DLE). We sought to evaluate and compare estimated utilities based on PROPr and PROMIS-GH in adult stroke survivors. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with 1 of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage seen in an outpatient clinic between 2015 and 2019. Patients completed PROMIS scales and other measures. We computed a modified version of PROPr (mPROPr) and compared the distributional characteristics and correlations with stroke outcomes for mPROPr, HUILE, and EQ5DLE. Results: T toal of 4,159 stroke survivors (average age 62.7 ± 14.7 y, 48.4% female, 77.6% ischemic stroke) were included. Mean utility estimates for mPROPr, EQ5DLE, and HUILE were 0.333 ± 0.244, 0.739 ± 0.201, and 0.544 ± 0.301, respectively. Correlations between the modified Rankin Scale and each of mPROPr and HUILE were both −0.48 and −0.43 for EQ5DLE. Regression analyses indicated that mPROPr scores may be too low for stroke patients in good health and that EQ5DLE scores may be too high for stroke patients in poor health. Conclusions: All 3 PROMIS-based utilities were associated with measures of stroke disability and severity, but the distributions of utilities were very different. Our study highlights the problem cost-effectiveness researchers face of valuing health states with certainty. For researchers using utilities estimated from PROMIS scales, our study indicates that mapping PROMIS-GH item scores to HUI-3 via linear equating may be most appropriate in stroke patients. Highlights: A new preference-based measure has been developed from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), known as the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) scoring system, and published equations mapping PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH) items to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) and EQ-5D-3L are available for use in cost-effectiveness studies. Our study provides distributional characteristics and comparisons of utilities estimated using a modified version of PROPr and equations mapping PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L and HUI-3 in a sample of stroke survivors. The results of our study show large differences in the distributions of utilities estimated using the different health state measures, and these differences highlight the ongoing difficulty researchers face in valuing health states with certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) and determine the effect of migraine subtype on patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM). Background: Prior studies have characterized migraine in the general population. While this provides a basis for our understanding of migraine, we have less insight into the characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes of migraine patients who present to subspecialty headache clinics. These patients represent a subset of the population that bears the greatest burden of migraine disability and are more representative of migraine patients who seek medical care. Valuable insights can be gained from a better understanding of CM and EM in this population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with CM or EM seen in the Cleveland Clinic Headache Center between January 2012 and June 2017. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and patient‐reported outcome measures (3‐Level European Quality of Life 5‐Dimension [EQ‐5D‐3L], Headache Impact Test‐6 [HIT‐6], Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 [PHQ‐9]) were compared between groups. Results: Eleven thousand thirty‐seven patients who had 29,032 visits were included. More CM patients reported being on disability 517/3652 (14.2%) than EM patients 249/4881 (5.1%) and had significantly worse mean HIT‐6 (67.3 ± 7.4 vs. 63.1 ± 7.4, p < 0.001) and median [interquartile range] EQ‐5D‐3L (0.77 [0.44–0.82] vs. 0.83 [0.77–1.00], p < 0.001), and PHQ‐9 (10 [6–16] vs. 5 [2–10], p < 0.001). Conclusions: There are multiple differences in demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions between patients with CM and EM. After adjustment for these factors, CM patients had higher PHQ‐9 scores, lower quality of life scores, greater disability, and greater work restrictions/unemployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]