Health‐related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of EuroQoL (EQ‐5D) utility scores from Asia
Introduction Region‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) scores or utility values are representative and pivotal for economic evaluations as they are influenced by the value judgment of the local population. This study systematically reviewed and pooled EuroQoL‐5 Dimension (EQ‐5D) utility...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of rheumatic diseases 2021-03, Vol.24 (3), p.314-326 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
Region‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) scores or utility values are representative and pivotal for economic evaluations as they are influenced by the value judgment of the local population. This study systematically reviewed and pooled EuroQoL‐5 Dimension (EQ‐5D) utility scores of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across primary studies from Asia.
Methods
Studies reporting EQ‐5D utility scores among adult RA patients from Asian countries were systematically searched in PubMed‐Medline, Scopus and Embase since inception through February 2020. Selected studies were systematically reviewed and study quality assessment was performed. Meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effect model with subgroup and meta‐regression analysis to explore heterogeneity.
Results
Among 1391 searched articles, 37 studies with 31 983 participants were systematically reviewed and meta‐analysis was conducted among 31 studies. The pooled EQ‐5D scores and EQ‐5D visual analog score were 0.66 (95% CI 0.63‐0.69, I2 = 99.65%) and 61.21 (50.73‐71.69, I2 = 99.56%) respectively with high heterogeneity. For RA patients with no, low, moderate and high disease activity based on Disease Activity Score (DAS)‐28, the pooled EQ‐5D scores were 0.78 (0.65‐0.90), 0.73 (0.65‐0.80), 0.53 (0.32‐ 0.74), and 0.47 (0.32‐0.62), respectively. On meta‐regression, age of patients (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1756-1841 1756-185X |
DOI: | 10.1111/1756-185X.14066 |