Front. Public Health Frontiers in Public Health Front. Public Health 2296-2565 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.675523 Public Health Systematic Review Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Different Diseases Measured With the EQ-5D-5L: A Systematic Review Zhou Ting 1 Guan Haijing 2 Wang Luying 1 Zhang Yao 1 Rui Mingjun 1 Ma Aixia 1 * 1School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China 2China Center for Health Economic Research, Peking University, Beijing, China

Edited by: Mihajlo Jakovljevic, Hosei University, Japan

Reviewed by: Renata Linertová, Fundación Canaria de Investigación Sanitaria, Spain; Long Hoang Nguyen, Hanoi Medical University, Vietnam; Georgi Iskrov, Plovdiv Medical University, Bulgaria

 *Correspondence: Aixia Ma aixiaxa1961@163.com

This article was submitted to Health Economics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

 29 06 2021 2021 9 675523 03 03 2021 24 05 2021 Copyright © 2021 Zhou, Guan, Wang, Zhang, Rui and Ma. 2021 Zhou, Guan, Wang, Zhang, Rui and Ma

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Background: The EQ-5D-5L is a generic preference-based questionnaire developed by the EuroQol Group to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in 2005. Since its development, it has been increasingly applied in populations with various diseases and has been found to have good reliability and sensitivity. This study aimed to summarize the health utility elicited from EQ-5D-5L for patients with different diseases in cross-sectional studies worldwide.

Methods: Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2012, to October 31, 2019. Cross-sectional studies reporting utility values measured with the EQ-5D-5L in patients with any specific disease were eligible. The language was limited to English. Reference lists of the retrieved studies were manually searched to identify more studies that met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed with the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist. In addition, meta-analyses were performed for utility values of any specific disease reported in three or more studies.

Results: In total, 9,400 records were identified, and 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. In the included studies, 50 different diseases and 98,085 patients were analyzed. Thirty-five studies involving seven different diseases were included in meta-analyses. The health utility ranged from 0.31 to 0.99 for diabetes mellitus [meta-analysis random-effect model (REM): 0.83, (95% CI = 0.77–0.90); fixed-effect model (FEM): 0.93 (95% CI = 0.93–0.93)]; from 0.62 to 0.90 for neoplasms [REM: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.68–0.82); FEM: 0.80 (95% CI = 0.78–0.81)]; from 0.56 to 0.85 for cardiovascular disease [REM: 0.77 (95% CI = 0.75–0.79); FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75–0.76)]; from 0.31 to 0.78 for multiple sclerosis [REM: 0.56 (95% CI = 0.47–0.66); FEM: 0.67 (95% CI = 0.66–0.68)]; from 0.68 to 0.79 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [REM: 0.75 (95% CI = 0.71–0.80); FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75–0.77)] from 0.65 to 0.90 for HIV infection [REM: 0.84 (95% CI = 0.80–0.88); FEM: 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80–0.82)]; from 0.37 to 0.89 for chronic kidney disease [REM: 0.70 (95% CI = 0.48–0.92; FEM: 0.76 (95% CI = 0.74–0.78)].

Conclusions: EQ-5D-5L is one of the most widely used preference-based measures of HRQoL in patients with different diseases worldwide. The variation of utility values for the same disease was influenced by the characteristics of patients, the living environment, and the EQ-5D-5L value set.

Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42020158694.

 HRQOL health utility EQ-5D-5L disease EuroQol Background

As a quantitative indicator of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), the health utility reflects people's preference for a given health state. The health utility is measured on a scale from zero to one, where zero represents death and one represents full health (1). The worse the perception of the health status is, the lower the utility value. It can be a negative value when a health state is perceived as being worse than death. There are several preference-based measurement tools for health utility, such as the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) family of instruments (2), the Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D) (3), and the Health Utilities Index (HUI) (4). Health utility can be used as quality-of-life weight to calculate QALYs in cost-utility analysis (CUA). Thus, health utility plays an important role not only in the measurement of HRQoL but also in health economics evaluations (5, 6).

The EQ-5D, developed by the European Quality of Life Group (EuroQol Group), is currently one of the most widely used questionnaires in HRQoL research (7). The original version of the EQ-5D was introduced in 1990 and contains five dimensions: Mobility, Self-Care, Usual Activities, Pain/Discomfort, and Anxiety/Depression (2). For each dimension, there were three levels to describe the severity, namely, have no problems, have some problems, and have extreme problems, which could describe 243 different health states (2). However, there may be some issues when using the EQ-5D-3L to detect small changes in mild conditions, and the EQ-5D-3L had obvious ceiling effects (8). Therefore, in 2005, the EuroQol Group developed a new version of the EQ-5D based on the same five dimensions but with five rather than three severity levels (EQ-5D-5L); this instrument could detect 3,125 unique health states (8). Published studies have shown that compared with the EQ-5D-3L, the EQ-5D-5L was significantly more sensitive, with reduced ceiling effects (9, 10).

To derive health utility from the responses on the EQ-5D instruments, country-specific value sets need to be estimated (11). Since 2016, more than 20 countries and regions have published standard EQ-5D-5L value sets (Europe: 9; Asia: 9; Americas: 3; Africa: 1) (12). In 2012, before any standard EQ-5D-5L value set was established, van Hout et al. (13) developed a crosswalk project to map the EQ-5D-5L to the EQ-5D-3L, enabling researchers to obtain a crosswalk value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on published EQ-5D-3L standard value sets. Besides that, the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L have been validated in both general and disease populations (12).

In recent years, with the availability of the EQ-5D-5L value sets, an increasing number of studies have used the EQ-5D-5L to measure the HRQoL of patients with different diseases and perform economic evaluations to support health decision-making (14, 15). At present, a comprehensive review of these studies is lacking. For HRQoL measured with EQ-5D-5L, cross-sectional studies mainly focus on the current health status of the patients while randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pay attention to the effects of different interventions on health outcomes. This study focuses on the use of the EQ-5D-5L to explore the variation in health utility in patients in different conditions, provide information to perform CUAs, and inform health policies.

 Method Search Strategy and Study Inclusion Criteria

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (16). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO with ID CRD42020158694 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). Literature searches were conducted in Medline via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2012 to October 2019 with combinations of the following search terms: “quality of life,” “QoL,” “HRQoL,” “HRQL,” “EQ-5D,” “EQ-5D-5L,” “five level,” “EuroQol,” “five dimensions,” “randomized controlled trial,” “RCT,” and “diseases” (details in Supplementary Table 1).

According to the selection criteria, all studies were original cross-sectional studies reporting EQ-5D-5L utilities for any specific disease with or without comorbidities and using country-specific value sets or the crosswalk method (mapping from EQ-5D-3L). Due to the lack of EQ-5D-5L standard value sets in many countries, the crosswalk method is the most important value set to calculate utility measured by EQ-5D-5L. In addition, the crosswalk method is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to perform CUA when EQ-5D-5L is used to measure health outcomes in England. Therefore, it is useful and necessary to include these articles in this review. Studies reported that multiple utility values using value sets from different countries in the same published article were also included. The language of publication was limited to English. This review excluded reviews, protocols, or abstracts; studies focused on the general population; longitudinal studies or effects evaluation studies of different interventions; studies that reported only synthetic utilities of multiple diseases, non-EQ-5D-5L utilities, or no utilities; and studies unrelated to HRQoL.

 Data Collection and Quality Assessment

After removing duplicates, title and abstract screening was conducted by two authors independently. Following the application of the selection criteria, all eligible studies with full-texts were read, and the relevant references were checked manually. Two researchers independently collected the data using a predesigned data extraction table, including author, publication year, country or region, sample size, disease type, mean age, health utility, EQ-5D VAS score, proportions with problems in the five dimensions, value set, and administration method (i.e., face-to-face, telephone survey). When there was any discrepancy between the two researchers, it was resolved by discussion.

Quality assessment was conducted with the 11-item cross-sectional research checklist developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (17). According to the description in the study and the AHRQ checklist, the reviewer selects one of three options (“Yes,” “No,” and “Unclear”) for each item. “Yes” was assigned one point, while “No” or “Unclear” was assigned zero points. The quality level of each study was determined by summing all the item scores. For each assessed study, 0–3 points indicated low quality, 4–7 points indicated moderate quality, and 8–11 points indicated high quality.

 Statistical Analysis

This review involved the analysis of the range of mean health utility values of the overall sample (or subgroups when there is no overall utility value reported) among different studies and value sets used in each study for a specific disease with or without comorbidities. In addition, this study reports the ranges in mean EQ-VAS scores and responses on each dimension of the EQ-5D-5L.

Meta-analysis was performed to synthesize utility data when three or more studies reported utility values and standard error/deviation for a specific disease. For any study that reported multiple utility values for the same sample using different EQ-5D-5L value sets, the average value or the utility calculated by using a local country-specific value set was applied in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Random-effect (DerSimonian–Laird estimator method) and fixed-effect (inverse variance method) models were both used to calculate the pooled utility for a specific disease. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by removing EQ-5D-5L utility values derived from crosswalk value sets. All analyses were performed with R (version 4.0.5).

 Results

A total of 9,500 articles were identified from the four databases, and four additional studies were obtained from the manual search. After eliminating duplicates, 6,409 documents were screened to assess eligibility, of which 98 articles (15, 16, 18–113) were finally included in qualitative analyses and 35 studies were included in meta-analyses (Figure 1). Those 98 articles involved 98,085 patients. The included studies were published between January 2006 and March 2018 (Table 1). Except for three studies (29, 39, 79) that only included male patients and one study (96) that only included female patients, the rest of the studies included patients of both sexes. Twenty studies did not report the mode of administration. Of the remaining 78 studies, 47.4% involved the face-to-face administration of the survey, 47.4% involved self-administered surveys, and 5.2% involved telephone surveys. The AHRQ checklist scores ranged from four to nine points, the median was six points, and the mode was five points (details in Supplementary Table 2). There were no low-quality studies; 87 studies and 11 studies were of moderate and high quality, respectively. The data about the distributions of EQ-5D-5L are summarized in Supplementary Table 3.

Flow diagram of article selection for inclusion.

Basic characteristics of the included studies.

Author year Country/region Survey time Sample size Male (%) Diseases Age (SD) AHQR scores
Natasya et al. 2018 (14) Indonesia October to December 2017 108 31.5 Diabetes mellitus (type 2) - 5
Sothornwit et al. 2018 (15) Thailand January 2014 to September 2016 254 47.0 Diabetes mellitus 63.2 (12.1) 6
Pan et al. 2018 (18) China 2015 722 43.1 Diabetes without diabetic retinopathy 67.9 (8.2) 5
56 44.6 Diabetes with unilateral retinopathy 68.9 (7.4)
102 51.0 Diabetes with bilateral retinopathy 65.3 (8.7)
Lamu et al. 2018 (19) Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, UK and USA 2012 924 58.7 Diabetes 55.9 (12.6) 7
Adibe et al. 2018 (20) Nigeria - 147 44.9 Diabetes mellitus (type 2) - 5
Arifin et al. 2019 (21) Indonesia November 2015 to October 2017 907 57.0 Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 59.3 (9.7) 6
Schmitt et al. 2018 (22) Germany September 2015 to August 2016 606 45.2 Diabetes mellitus 50 (15) 7
Collado et al. 2015 (23) Spain July 2011 to June 2012 1,857 45.3 Diabetes mellitus ≥18 6
Khatib et al. 2018 (24) Palestine November 2016 to June 2017 141 52.5 Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 60.3 8
Zyoud et al. 2015 (25) Palestine June 2013 to October 2013 385 44.9 Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 59.3 (11.2) 5
Xu et al. 2017 (26) China July to December 2014 1,721 - Heart disease ≥18 5
4,528 - Hypertension ≥18
2,326 - Diabetes ≥18
267 - Cancer ≥18
Pan et al. 2016 (27) China March 2014 to June 2014 289 30.5 Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 64.9 (9.1) 7
Huang et al. 2018 (28) China December 2016 to April 2017 300 65.0 Colorectal cancer 59 7
Gavin et al. 2016 (29) Republic of Ireland 2012 1,431 100.0 Prostate cancer early stage 64.9 (7.6) 7
407 100.0 Prostate cancer late stage 64.9 (7.6)
Northern Ireland 2012 269 100.0 Prostate cancer early stage 64.9 (7.6)
282 100.0 Prostate cancer late stage 64.9 (7.6)
Lloyd et al. 2015 (30) UK - 50 100.0 Prostate cancer asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic 71.8 (8.8) 5
50 100.0 Prostate cancer currently receiving chemotherapy 69.8 (11.9)
12 100.0 Prostate cancer symptomatic before chemotherapy 59.9 (15.2)
46 100.0 Prostate cancer post chemotherapy 68.4 (9.24)
Philipp-Dormston et al. 2018 (31) Germany October 2015 to February 2016 869 61.3 Actinic keratosis 74 8
578 61.3 Basal cell carcinoma 74
204 61.3 Squamous cell carcinoma 74
Noel et al. 2015 (32) Canada August 2014 to October 2014 100 75.0 Squamous cell carcinoma 61 5
Mastboom et al. 2018 (33) Netherlands December 2016 to May 2017 69 20.3 Localized tenosynovial giant cell tumor 41 6
230 22.2 Diffuse tenosynovial giant cell tumor 41
Zhang et al. 2017 (34) Australia 2015 231 36.8 Progressive-onset multiple sclerosis 61.8 (9.6) 7
1,514 18.4 Relapse-onset multiple sclerosis 53.5 (11.0)
Algahtani et al. 2017 (35) Saudi Arabia June 2016 to April 2017 292 30.8 Multiple sclerosis 35.9 (10.3) 7
Fogarty et al. 2012 (36) Ireland - 214 33.6 Multiple sclerosis 47.6 (12.8) 6
Carney et al. 2018 (37) Ireland Spring of 2015 541 28.7 Multiple sclerosis 47 7
Nohara et al. 2017 (38) Japan 2016 96 38.5 Multiple sclerosis 47.5 (14.2) 7
Barin et al. 2018 (39) Switzerland June 2016 to September 2017 855 27.3 Multiple sclerosis 48.0 (38.6) 8
Buanes et al. 2015 (40) Norway October 2012 30 80.0 Cardiac arrest 62 5
Berg et al. 2017 (41) Denmark April 2013 to April 2014 7,179 73 Ischemic heart disease 65.5 9
4,322 65 Arrhythmia 63.6
987 73 Heart failure 65.4
115 47 Congenital heart disease 43.9
204 75 Infectious heart disease 59.4
975 66 Heart valve disease 71.2
136 74 Heart transplant 51.2
321 61 Other diagnoses of heart disease 61.4
2,473 53 Observation for heart disease 61.5
Squire et al. 2017 (42) UK January to May 2015 191 73.0 Heart failure 70 6
Meroño et al. 2017 (43) Spain November 2012 to October 2015 139 66.0 Iron deficiency in acute coronary syndrome 67 (15) 9
105 83.0 Acute coronary syndrome non-iron deficiency 61 (12)
Tran et al. 2018 (44) Vietnam July to December 2016 600 41.5 Cardiovascular disease 57.2 5
Wang et al. 2018 (45) China 234 43.0 Atrial fibrillation 60 5
De Smedt et al. 2016 (46) 24 European countries 2012 to 2013 7,449 76.1 Stable coronary disease 64 5
Garcia-Gordillo et al. 2017 (47) Spain July 2011 and June 2012 1,130 48.7 COPD 15-102 5
Igarashi et al. 2018 (48) Japan - 71 84.5 COPD age <65 years 60.5 (5.3) 6
151 95.4 COPD age ≥ 65 years 75.2 (5.9)
Lin et al. 2014 (49) USA 2006 to 2010 670 58.0 COPD 68.5 (10.4) 6
Nolan et al. 2016 (50) UK April 2012 to October 2014 616 59.7 COPD 70.4 (9.3) 8
Keaei et al. 2016 (51) Colombia May to June 2014 138 77.5 HIV/AIDS 46.4 (11.4) 7
Dang et al. 2018 (52) Vietnam January to August 2013 1,133 58.7 HIV-positive 35.5 (6.9) 7
Tran et al. 2012 (53) Vietnam 2012 1,016 63.8 HIV 35.4 (7.0) 6
Van Duin et al. 2017 (54) Columbia 100 77.0 HIV with comorbidities 48.0 (11.2) 5
38 21.1 HIV without comorbidities 42.2 (11.1)
Yang et al. 2015 (55) Singapore June 2012 to May 2013. 150 51.3 End-stage renal disease 60.1 (11.6) 6
Hiragi et al. 2019 (56) Japan July 2015 to March 2017 67 62.7 Chronic kidney disease (TR) 49.8 (13.1) 4
65 53.8 Chronic kidney disease (TRC) 49.4 (11.6)
Zyoud et al. 2016 (57) Palestine June 2014 to January 2015 267 52.1 End-stage renal disease 53.3 (16.2) 8
Al-Jabi et al. 2015 (58) Palestine July 2012 and October 2012 410 48.0 Hypertension 58.4 (10.7) 8
van der Linde et al. 2017 (59) Netherland January 2006 to December 2014. 101 77.2 Midshaft clavicular fractures 44.5 (13.6) 7
Larsen et al. 2015 (60) Denmark Autumn 2013 to spring 2014 48 77.1 Femoral shaft fracture 38.0 (19.4) 6
Kim et al. 2018 (61) Korea August 2014 to February 2017. 59 11.9 Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture 73.5 (6.2) 6
Chevreul et al. 2016 (62) France September 2012 to May 2013 38 45.0 Prader–Willi syndrome 17.4 (12.2) 4
López-Bastida et al. 2016 (63) UK September 2011 to April 2013 26 - Prader–Willi syndrome 13.7 (8.5) 5
Sweden 10 - Prader–Willi syndrome 16.0 (9.2)
Spain 61 - Prader–Willi syndrome 14.9 (10.8)
Germany 52 - Prader–Willi syndrome 10.8 (9.5)
Italy 48 - Prader–Willi syndrome 13.6 (9.6)
France 51 - Prader–Willi syndrome 17.4 (12.2)
Vaizey et al. 2014 (64) UK October 2011 to March 2012 100 55.0 Ulcerative colitis remission 47.5 5
31 48.4 Ulcerative colitis mild 48
42 40.5 Ulcerative colitis moderate/severe 40.5
Gibson et al. 2014 (65) Australia July to October 2011 94 47.4 Ulcerative colitis remission 47.8 (12.7) 5
29 47.4 Ulcerative colitis mild 47.8 (12.7)
52 47.4 Ulcerative colitis moderate/severe 47.8 (12.7)
Yfantopoulos et al. 2017 (66) Greece December 2012 to March 2013 396 60.1 Psoriasis 52.0 (16.5) 5
Zhao et al. 2017 (67) China May 2014 to February 2015 350 69.7 Psoriasis 39 7
Choi et al. 2018 (68) Korea January to December 2017 105 76.0 Ankylosing spondylitis 39 5
Chiowchanwisawaki et al. 2019 (69) Thailand May 2012 to March 2016 119 61.3 Ankylosing spondylitis 40.4 (11.6) 5
Alvarado-Bolaños et al. 2015 (70) Mexico - 585 54.4 Parkinson's disease 62.9 (12.3) 4
Garcia-Gordillo et al. 2014 (71) Spain May 1 to July 15, 2012 133 71.4 Parkinson's disease 64.3 (9.7) 6
Lee et al. 2015 (72) South Korea July to December 2013 625 32.5 Overactive bladder 63.5 (12.0) 6
Lloyd et al. 2017 (73) UK 2014 249 54.6 Idiopathic overactive bladder 57.3/58.1 6
Nordenfelt et al. 2017 (74) Sweden May and October 2016. 64 40.6 Hereditary angioedema 51 6
Nordenfelt et al. 2014 (75) Sweden June 2011 103 47.6 Hereditary angioedema 41/44 4
Whitehurst et al. 2016 (76) Canada March to June 2013 364 62.9 Spinal cord injury 50.40 (13.2) 8
Engel et al. 2018 (77) Canada March to June 2013 364 62.9 Spinal cord injury 50.4 (13.2) 3
Buckner et al. 2017 (78) USA September to November 2015 299 71.0 Hemophilia B 29 5
Kempton et al. 2018 (79) USA October 2013 to October 2014 381 100.0 Hemophilia 34 7
Arraras et al. 2018 (80) Spain May 2015 to June 2016 61 66.0 Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder 37.9 (10.5) 7
Kitic et al. 2018 (81) Serbia - 153 54.9 Schizophrenia 50.8 (10.1) 4
Tennvall et al. 2015 (82) Denmark May to June in 2012 312 51.9 Actinic keratosis 71 (11.0) 7
Gray et al. 2018 (83) Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States 2012 852 37.7 Asthma 43.0 (15.0) 4
Hernandez et al. 2018 (84) French 222 38.7 Asthma 30.3 (6.7) 8
Wong et al. 2018 (85) UK March 2014 to January 2017 990 19.7 Autoimmune hepatitis 58 7
Cook et al. 2019 (86) Canada, Germany, UK, and USA - 166 49.4 Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis 52.0 (11.8) 5
van Dongen-Leunis et al. 2016 (87) Netherlands 2012 111 52.3 Acute leukemia 51.0 (13.4) 6
Hendriksz et al. 2014 (88) Brazil, Colombia, Germany, Spain, Turkey, UK June 2012 to April 2013 25 - Morquio A syndrome adults ≥18 5
33 - Morquio A syndrome children 5-17
Andersson et al. 2016 (89) France, Germany, Spain, USA February to May 2013 1,104 59.1 Nocturia 65.1 8
Mealy et al. 2019 (90) USA October 6, 2014 21 90.5 Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder 42.8 (10.6) 5
Nikiphorou et al. 2018 (91) Multinational - 3,370 66.0 Spondyloarthritis 42.9 (13.7) 5
Van Assche et al. 2016 (92) 11 European countries - 250 58.8 Ulcerative colitis 46.6 (16.3) 6
Mijnarends et al. 2016 (93) Dutch May 2013 to February 2014 53 52.8 Sarcopenia 80.4 (7.1) 7
Tran et al. 2018 (94) Vietnam September to November 2017. 223 51.1 Dengue fever 31.6 (12.4) 7
Chevreul et al. 2015 (95) France September 2012 to May 2013 82 42.7 Cystic fibrosis 28.6 (8.1) 5
Collado-Mateo et al. 2017 (96) Spain October 2014 to October 2015 192 0.0 Fibromyalgia 53.8 (10.0) 5
Chevreul et al. 2015 (97) France September 2012 to May 2013 95 87.4 Fragile X syndrome 19.4 (13.1) 5
Juul-Kristensen et al. 2017 (98) Denmark January to June 2015 300 24.3 Generalized joint hypermobility 48 6
Bewick et al. 2018 (99) UK January 2013 to January 2014 52 51.0 Rhinosinusitis 55 6
Forestier-Zhang et al. 2016 (100) UK September 2014 to March 2016. 43 23.0 Osteogenesis imperfecta 40.4 (14.4) 6
42 31.0 Fibrous dysplasia 44.3 (14.5)
24 21.0 X-linked hypophosphatemia 46.3 (16.3)
Katchamart et al. 2019 (101) Thailand September 2016 to March 2018 464 14.9 Rheumatoid arthritis 59.2 (11.4) 5
Román Ivorra et al. 2019 (102) Spain October 2015 to March 2016 190 7.9 Systemic lupus erythematosus 47.2 (13.4) 5
Aguirre et al. 2016 (103) UK - 272 39.0 Dementia 82.6 (8.1) 5
Wong et al. 2017 (104) China August to October 2015 227 25.1 Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis 15.5 (3.8) 5
Christensen et al. 2016 (105) Norway June 27 to July 3, 2014 188 13.9 Opioid-induced constipation ≥18 5
Vo et al. 2018 (106) France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK 2016 218 20.6 Migraine 43.3 (13.5) 6
Voormolen et al. 2019 (107) UK, the Netherlands and Italy June 29th to July 31st 2017 11,759 49.7 Post-concussion syndrome 44 5
Lim et al. 2017 (108) Singapore 2013 100 59.0 Stoma 64 (9.7) 5
Villoro et al. 2016 (109) Spain 2011–2012 14,691 28.3 Chronic depression 48.3 (11.0) 7
Vermaire et al. 2016 (110) Netherlands July 2013 to June 2015 76 42.1 severe dental anxiety 42.6 (11.9) 6
Lane et al. 2017 (111) UK January 2011 and July 2012 330 47.0 Symptomatic varicose vein 52 6
Rencz et al. 2018 (112) Hungary October 2016 to September 2017 206 54.9 Crohn's disease 34.7 (10.5) 7
Chevreul et al. 2015 (113) France September 2012 to May 2013 147 9.5 Systemic sclerosis 53.8 (11.7) 7

SD, standard deviation; AHQR, agency for health research and quality; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; AIDS, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; TRC, transplant recipient candidate; TR, transplant recipient.

In this review, health utility values derived from the EQ-5D-5L were reported for 50 different diseases. Among these, diabetes mellitus, neoplasms, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pneumonia disease (COPD), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, chronic kidney disease, and fracture were reported in three or more studies and meta-analyses were performed for these diseases (fracture was not included in meta-analysis, because only two of the studies reported standard error/deviation). The sensitivity analysis results (remove all the utility values derived from the crosswalk value set) are presented in Supplementary Figure 1.

Diabetes Mellitus

For patients with diabetes mellitus (Table 2), 12 studies reported health utility values ranging from 0.31 to 0.99 (14, 15, 18–27). The Chinese standard EQ-5D-5L value set (18) and Crosswalk UK value set (24) were used to derive the utility values in the studies that reported the highest value and lowest value, respectively. The former focused on diabetes patients without diabetic retinopathy with a mean disease duration of 10.3 years and a mean age of 67.9 years (18), while the latter involved patients with severe comorbidities on hemodialysis, with a mean age of 60.3 years (24). Additionally, Lamu et al. (19) used eight country value sets (England, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Uruguay, China, Japan, and Korea) to analyze 924 diabetic patients from six countries. The results showed that the utility value calculated with the Uruguay value set was the highest at 0.880, while the lowest, 0.735, was derived with the value set from the Netherlands. The EQ-5D VAS scores were reported to range from 50.9 to 72.6 in six studies (14, 20, 22–25). Among the five dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L, pain/discomfort was the dimension with the most reported problems. The prevalence of diabetes comorbidities ranged from 55 to 100%, which was one of the most important factors negatively affecting the HRQoL of patients.

HRQoL in patients with different diseases measured by the EQ-5D-5L.

Diseases Health Utility VAS scores Have any problem in 5 dimensions (%) Administration
Mean SD Value set※ Mean SD MO SC UA PA AD
Diabetes mellitus
Natasya et al. 2018 (14) Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 0.74 0.23 Indonesia 65.5 16.0 44.4 16.6 27.8 64.8 58.3 -
Sothornwit et al. 2018 (15) Diabetes mellitus 0.80 0.25 Thailand - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Pan et al. 2018 (18) Diabetes without diabetic retinopathy 0.99 0.05 China - - 7.1 1.1 0.7 7.9 3.2 Telephone
Diabetes with unilateral retinopathy 0.97 0.08 China - - 12.5 5.4 5.4 16.1 8.9 Telephone
Diabetes with bilateral retinopathy 0.97 0.15 China - - 7.8 3.9 5.9 9.8 5.9 Telephone
Lamu et al. 2018 (19) Diabetes mellitus 0.79 0.22 England - - - - - - - Self-administered
Diabetes mellitus 0.74 0.26 Dutch - - - - - - - Self-administered
Diabetes mellitus 0.76 0.21 Spain - - - - - - - Self-administered
Diabetes mellitus 0.78 0.19 Canada - - - - - - - Self-administered
Diabetes mellitus 0.88 0.14 Uruguay - - - - - - - Self-administered
Diabetes mellitus 0.76 0.25 China - - - - - - - Self-administered
Diabetes mellitus 0.77 0.19 Japan - - - - - - - Self-administered
Diabetes mellitus 0.78 0.17 Korea - - - - - - - Self-administered
Adibe et al. 2018 (20) Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 0.72 0.13 - 72.6 10.5 61.2 32.0 62.6 83.0 71.4 Face-to-face
Arifn et al. 2019 (21) Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 0.77 - Indonesia - - 37.0 12.0 23.0 61.0 34.0 Self-administered
Schmitt et al. 2018 (22) Diabetes mellitus 0.80 0.20 Crosswalk (Germany) 66.0 20.0 - - - - - -
Collado et al. 2015 (23) Diabetes mellitus 0.74 0.32 Crosswalk (Spain) 61.1 20.5 46.8 23.6 37.5 54.4 29.4 Face-to-face
Khatib et al. 2018 (24) Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 0.31 - Crosswalk (UK) 50.9 22.4 - - - - - Face-to-face
Zyoud et al. 2015 (25) Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 0.70 0.20 - 63.7 19.2 - - - - - Face-to-face
Xu et al. 2017 (26) Diabetes mellitus 0.84 0.23 Hong Kong - - - - - - - Telephone survey
Pan et al. 2016 (27) Diabetes mellitus (type 2) 0.88 0.14 Crosswalk (China) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Neoplasms
Huang et al. 2018 (28) Colorectal cancer 0.62 0.37 China - - 46.3 49.0 53.3 60.3 59.3 Face-to-face.
Gavin et al. 2016 (29) Prostate cancer late stage (RoI) 0.80 - Crosswalk (UK) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Prostate cancer late stage (NI) 0.70 - Crosswalk (UK) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Prostate cancer early stage (RoI) 0.90 - Crosswalk (UK) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Prostate cancer early stage (NI) 0.80 - Crosswalk (UK) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Lloyd et al. 2015 (30) Prostate cancer asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic 0.83 0.13 CrosswalkΔ 77.5 12.6 - - - - - Self-administered
Prostate cancer currently receiving chemotherapy 0.69 0.22 CrosswalkΔ 67.4 14.3 - - - - - Self-administered
Prostate cancer symptomatic before chemotherapy 0.63 0.17 CrosswalkΔ 56.2 16.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Prostate cancer post chemotherapy 0.70 0.18 CrosswalkΔ 66.0 17.9 - - - - - Self-administered
Philipp-Dormston et al. 2018 (31) Basal cell carcinoma 0.87* - Dutch - - - - - - - -
Squamous cell carcinoma 0.84 - Dutch - - - - - - - -
Noel et al. 2015 (32) Squamous cell carcinoma 0.82 0.18 - 76.0 19.0 - - - - - Face-to-face
Mastboom et al. 2018 (33) Diffuse tenosynovial giant cell tumor 0.72 - Crosswalk (US) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Localized tenosynovial giant cell tumor 0.76 - Crosswalk (US) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Xu et al. 2017 (26) Cancer 0.84 0.22 Hong Kong - - - - - - - Telephone survey
Multiple sclerosis
Zhang et al. 2017 (34) Relapse-onset multiple sclerosis 0.73 0.22 - - - - - - - - Self-administered
Progressive-onset multiple sclerosis 0.54 0.27 - - - - - - - - Self-administered
Algahtani et al. 2017 (35) Multiple sclerosis 0.31 0.51 Crosswalk (UK) 73.9 23.4 72.9 60.3 68.2 71.9 73.6 Face-to-face
Fogarty et al. 2012 (36) Multiple sclerosis 0.59 0.33 CrosswalkΔ 65.0 22.4 70.1 36.2 70.6 67.3 54.2 Face-to-face
Carney et al. 2018 (37) Multiple sclerosis 0.59 0.29 Crosswalk (UK) 63.3 21.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Nohara et al. 2017 (38) Multiple sclerosis 0.68 0.19 - 58.3 27.0 - - - - - Self-administered
Barin et al. 2018 (39) Multiple sclerosis 0.78 - Crosswalk (France) 78.0 - - - - - - Face-to-face
Cardiovascular disease
Buanes et al. 2015 (40) Cardiac arrest 0.85 - - 70.6 - - - - - - Self-completed
Berg et al. 2017 (41) Ischemic heart disease 0.76 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 68.6 19.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Arrhythmia 0.70 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 72.2 19.6 - - - - - Self-administered
Heart failure 0.73 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 61.4 19.5 - - - - - Self-administered
Congenital heart disease 0.77 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 69.9 19.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Infectious heart disease 0.73 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 68.4 19.6 - - - - - Self-administered
Heart valve disease 0.74 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 66.1 19.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Heart transplant 0.82 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 76.0 19.6 - - - - - Self-administered
Other diagnoses of heart disease 0.73 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 65.3 19.5 - - - - - Self-administered
Observation for heart disease 0.76 0.16 CrosswalkΔ 70.5 19.6 - - - - - Self-administered
Squire et al. 2017 (42) Heart failure 0.60 0.25 UK 63.0 20.0 - - - - - Self-administered
Merono et al. 2017 (43) Iron deficiency in acute coronary syndrome 0.76 0.25 - 66.0 16.0 52.0 20.0 49.0 50.0 61.0 Self-administered
Acute coronary syndrome non-iron deficiency 0.84 0.16 - 72.0 17.0 29.0 12.0 33.0 49.0 52.0 Self-administered
Tran et al. 2018 (44) Cardiovascular disease 0.82 0.21 CrosswalkΔ 77.8 13.6 24.8 19.8 22.7 38.8 35.2 Face-to-face
Wang et al. 2018 (45) Atrial fibrillation 0.56 - China - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Xu et al. 2017 (26) Heart disease 0.84 0.24 Hong Kong - - - - - - - Telephone survey
De Smedt et al. 2016 (46) Stable coronary disease 0.78 0.20 CrosswalkΔ 67.1 21.4 - - - - - -
COPD
Garcia-Gordillo et al. 2017 (47) COPD 0.74 0.31 CrosswalkΔ 60.5 21.9 45.4 22.2 37.5 57.1 34.9 Face-to-face.
Igarashi et al. 2018 (48) COPD age ≥ 65 years 0.77 0.18 Japan 69.2 18.7 56.3 26.5 46.7 37.7 35.1 Self-administered
COPD age <65 years 0.79 0.22 Japan 70.5 23.8 43.7 23.9 43.7 30.0 38.6 Self-administered
Lin et al. 2014 (49) COPD 0.79 0.15 CrosswalkΔ 70.6 19.6 63.6 19.5 54.8 61.9 36.3 -
Nolan et al. 2016 (50) COPD 0.68 0.24 UK 61.0 20.6 - - - - - -
HIV infection
Keaei et al. 2016 (51) HIV/AIDS 0.85 0.21 Crosswalk (Spain) 84.4 14.3 18.8 8.7 15.9 38.4 40.6 Face-to-face
Dang et al. 2018 (52) HIV-positive 0.80 0.20 - 68.8 17.3 20.5 9.7 16.6 37.7 44.9 Face-to-face
Tran et al. 2012 (53) HIV 0.65 - Crosswalk (Thailand) 70.3 - 45.1 20.2 35.4 58.2 72.5 Face-to-face
Van Duin et al. 2017 (54) HIV with comorbidities 0.84 0.22 Crosswalk (Spain) 84.4 16.1 - - - - - -
HIV without comorbidities 0.90 0.19 Crosswalk (Spain) 88.6 10.4 - - - - - -
Chronic kidney disease
Yang et al. 2015 (55) End-stage renal disease 0.68 0.36 Crosswalk (UK) - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Hiragi et al. 2019 (56) Chronic kidney disease (TRC) 0.89 0.15 Japan - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Chronic kidney disease (TR) 0.85 0.16 Japan - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Zyoud et al. 2016 (57) End-stage renal disease 0.37 0.44 Crosswalk (UK) 59.4 45.4 27.3 54.7 37.5 25.5 35.2 Face-to-face
Hypertension
Al-Jabi et al. 2015 (58) Hypertension 0.80 0.16 Crosswalk (UK) 74.1 15.6 - - - - - Face-to-face
Xu et al. 2017 (26) Hypertension 0.85 0.22 Hong Kong - - - - - - - Telephone survey
Fractures
Van der Linde et al. 2017 (59) Midshaft clavicular fractures 0.88 0.14 - 77.2 26.8 - - - - - Self-administered
Larsen et al. 2015 (60) Femoral shaft fracture 0.80 - Crosswalk (Denmark) 80.3 - - - - - - -
Kim et al. 2018 (61) Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture 0.56 0.24 - - - - - - - - -
Prader–Willi syndrome
Chevreul et al. 2016 (62) Prader–Willi syndrome 0.44 0.33 CrosswalkΔ 59.5 17.7 - - - - - Face-to-face
López-Bastida et al. 2016 (63) Prader–Willi syndrome (UK) 0.48 0.22 - 56.9 19.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Prader–Willi syndrome (Sweden) 0.63 0.10 - 51.3 10.3 - - - - - Self-administered
Prader–Willi syndrome (Spain) 0.60 0.78 - 62.6 20.5 - - - - - Self-administered
Prader–Willi syndrome (Italy) 0.40 0.29 - 56.2 19.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Prader–Willi syndrome (Germany) 0.81 0.14 - 60.7 26.4 - - - - - Self-administered
Prader–Willi syndrome (France) 0.41 0.34 - 56.5 17.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Ulcerative colitis
Vaizey et al. 2014 (64) Ulcerative colitis remission 0.86 0.15 CrosswalkΔ - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Gibson et al. 2014 (65) Ulcerative colitis remission 0.81 0.18 - - - - - - - - -
Vaizey et al. 2014 (64) Ulcerative colitis moderate/severe 0.66 0.24 CrosswalkΔ - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Gibson et al. 2014 (65) Ulcerative colitis moderate/severe 0.68 0.19 - - - - - - - - -
Vaizey et al. 2014 (64) Ulcerative colitis mild 0.77 0.11 CrosswalkΔ - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Gibson et al. 2014 (65) Ulcerative colitis mild 0.78 0.18 - - - - - - - - -
Psoriasis
Yfantopoulos et al. 2017 (66) Psoriasis 0.74 0.23 CrosswalkΔ 74.7 18.1 18.4 9.8 15.7 33.6 78.0 Self-administered
Zhao et al. 2017 (67) Psoriasis 0.90 0.10 China 72.7 15.7 - - - - - Face-to-face
Psoriasis 0.86 0.10 Japan 72.7 15.7 - - - - - Face-to-face
Psoriasis 0.90 0.09 UK 72.7 15.7 - - - - - Face-to-face
Ankylosing spondylitis
Choi et al. 2018 (68) Ankylosing spondylitis 0.69* - Japan - - - - - - - -
Chiowchanwisawakit et al. 2019 (69) Ankylosing spondylitis 0.75 0.20 Thailand 68.8 18.8 77.3 37.0 68.9 93.3 54.6 Face-to-face
Actinic keratosis
Tennvall et al. 2015 (82) Actinic keratosis 0.88 0.14 Crosswalk (Denmark) 79.3 18.9 21.0 7.0 18.0 39.0 22.0 -
Philipp-Dormston et al. 2018 (31) Actinic keratosis 0.89* - Dutch - - - - - - - -
Parkinson's disease
Alvarado-Bolaños et al. 2015 (70) Parkinson's disease 0.71 0.20 Crosswalk (US) 73.8 18.7 - - - - - Self-administered
Garcia-Gordillo et al. 2014 (71) Parkinson's disease 0.59 0.26 Crosswalk (Spain) 57.6 19.7 75.9 60.2 75.9 75.9 66.2 -
Overactive bladder
Lee et al. 2015 (72) Overactive bladder 0.79 0.20 Crosswalk (UK) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Lloyd et al. 2017 (73) Idiopathic overactive bladder 0.73 0.26 - 68.2 21.6 - - - - - Face-to-face
Hereditary angioedema
Nordenfelt et al. 2017 (74) Hereditary angioedema 0.84* - UK - - - - - - - Self-administered
Nordenfelt et al. 2014 (75) Hereditary angioedema 0.83 0.21 CrosswalkΔ - - - - - - - Self-administered
Spinal cord injury
Whitehurst et al. 2016 (76) Spinal cord injury 0.49 0.20 Canada - - 97.0 67.0 80.0 93.0 57.0 Self-administered
Engel et al. 2018 (77) Spinal cord injury 0.49 0.20 Canada - - - - - - - Self-administered
Schizophrenia
Arraras et al. 2018 (80) Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder 0.80 0.21 - 58.8 19.6 - - - - - Face-to-face
Kitic et al. 2018 (81) Schizophrenia 0.86 0.13 - 50.0 13.8 - - - - - Face-to-face
Hemophilia
Buckner et al. 2017 (78) Hemophilia B 0.67 - Crosswalk (US) 54.4 - 78.0 75.0 87.0 93.0 81.0 Self-administered
Kempton et al. 2018 (79) Hemophilia 0.77 - Crosswalk (US) 65.6 - 61.4 18.9 53.2 76.1 43.4 -
Asthma
Gray et al. 2018 (83) Asthma 0.84 0.17 UK - - - - - - - Self-administered
Hernandez et al. 2018 (84) Asthma 0.83 0.17 Crosswalk (French) 77.3 16.5 - - - - - Telephonic interviews
Hepatitis
Wong et al. 2018 (85) Autoimmune hepatitis 0.89* - UK 80.0 - - - - - - -
Cook et al. 2019 (86) Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis 0.81 0.17 - 67.2 18.9 - - - - - Telephone survey
Other diseases
van Dongen-Leunis et al. 2016 (87) Acute leukemia 0.81 0.22 Dutch - - - - - - - Self-administered
Acute leukemia 0.85 0.18 UK - - - - - - - Self-administered
Hendriksz et al. 2014 (88) MAS use wheelchair when needed (children) 0.66 - - - - - - - - - Self-administered
MAS use wheelchair when needed (adult) 0.58 - - - - - - - - - Self-administered
MAS don't need wheelchair (children) 0.53 - - - - - - - - - Self-administered
MAS don't need wheelchair (adult) 0.85 - - - - - - - - - Self-administered
MAS always use wheelchair (children) −0.18 - - - - - - - - - Self-administered
MAS use wheelchair (adult) 0.06 - - - - - - - - - Self-administered
Andersson et al. 2016 (89) Nocturia 0.78 - UK - - - - - - - Self-administered
Mealy et al. 2019 (90) Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder 0.74 0.16 CrosswalkΔ - - 66.7 33.3 61.9 76.2 71.4 Face-to-face.
Nikiphorou et al. 2018 (91) Spondyloarthritis 0.60 0.30 - - - - - - - - -
Van Assche et al. 2016 (92) Ulcerative colitis 0.77 0.19 - 70.5 19.1 - - - - - -
Mijnarends et al. 2016 (93) Sarcopenia 0.78 0.19 CrosswalkΔ 72.0 16.0 - - - - - Face-to-face
Tran et al. 2018 (94) Dengue fever 0.66 0.24 CrosswalkΔ - - 62.3 71.8 64.6 32.3 64.1 Face-to-face
Chevreul et al. 2015 (95) Cystic fibrosis 0.67 0.25 Crosswalk (French) 65.6 20.0 - - - - - Self-administered
Collado-Mateo et al. 2017 (96) Fibromyalgia 0.49 0.26 Crosswalk (Spain) - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Chevreul et al. 2015 (97) Fragile X syndrome 0.49 0.24 CrosswalkΔ 70.0 - - - - - - Self-administered
Juul-Kristensen et al. 2017 (98) Generalized joint hypermobility 0.82* - CrosswalkΔ 80* - - - - - - Self-administered
Bewick et al. 2018 (99) Rhinosinusitis 0.75 0.23 UK 73.4 - 30.8 9.6 39.5 67.3 42.3 Face-to-face
Forestier-Zhang et al. 2016 (100) Fibrous dysplasia 0.66 0.29 UK 64.1 23.0 57.0 38.0 67.0 98.0 62.0 Self-administered
X-linked hypophosphatemia 0.65 0.29 UK 60.8 26.9 87.0 50.0 75.0 92.0 58.0 Self-administered
Osteogenesis imperfecta 0.66 0.28 UK 69.4 21.4 81.0 39.0 65.0 93.0 60.0 Self-administered
Katchamart et al. 2019 (101) Rheumatoid arthritis 0.87 0.13 - 79.4 17.0 51.5 16.8 35.3 70.5 38.8 -
Román Ivorral et al. 2019 (102) Systemic lupus erythematosus 0.74 0.25 - 65.7 23.5 - - - - - Face-to-face
Aguirre et al. 2016 (103) Dementia 0.78 0.23 - 64.1 20.5 - - - - - -
Wong et al. 2017 (104) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis 0.93 0.11 Crosswalk (China) - - - - - - - Self-administered
Christensen et al. 2016 (105) Opioid-induced constipation 0.59 0.27 - 60.7 22.6 - - - - - Self-administered
Vo et al. 2018 (106) Migraine 0.68 - - - - - - - - - Self-administered
Voormolen et al. 2019 (107) Post-concussion syndrome 0.81 0.23 Dutch 74.7 19.6 - - - - - Self-administered
Lim et al. 2017 (108) Stoma 0.80 0.16 Crosswalk (UK) 76.0 8.7 - - - - - -
Villoro et al. 2016 (109) Chronic depression 0.74 0.28 Spain - - 30.1 13.3 28.6 57.4 73.5 Face-to-face
Vermaire et al. 2016 (110) Severe dental anxiety 0.70* - CrosswalkΔ - - - - - - - Face-to-face
Lane et al. 2017 (111) Symptomatic varicose vein 0.74* - - 80* - - - - - - Face-to-face
Rencz et al. 2018 (112) Crohn's disease 0.87 0.12 UK 72.7 19.7 4.8 1.5 11.6 17.8 5.9 Self-administered
Chevreul et al. 2015 (113) Systemic sclerosis 0.49 0.25 Crosswalk (France) 59.0 18.0 - - - - - Face-to-face

SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; EQ-5D-5L, 5 level version of EuroQol 5-Dimensions; MO, mobility; SC, self-care; UA, usual activities; PD, pain/discomfort; AD, anxiety/depression; RoI, the Republic of Ireland; NI, Northern Ireland; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; AIDS, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; TRC, transplant recipient candidate; TR, transplant recipient; MAS, Morquio A syndrome.

Crosswalk method is using the EQ-5D-3L standard value set to calculate EQ-5D-5L utility values.

Only reported median value.

The country of crosswalk method not reported.

The meta-analytic utility estimate of diabetes mellitus was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77–0.90, heterogeneity I2 = 100%, P = 0.00) using the random-effect model, and it was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.93–0.93) using the fixed-effect model. The results are presented in Figure 2A.

(A) Forest plot of the health utility of patients with diabetes mellitus. (B) Forest plot of the health utility of patients with neoplasms. (C) Forest plot of the health utility of patients with multiple sclerosis. (D) Forest plot of the health utility of patients with cardiovascular diseases. (E) Forest plot of the health utility of patients with chronic obstructive pneumonia disease. (F) Forest plot of the health utility of patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. (G) Forest plot of the health utility of patients with chronic kidney disease.

 Neoplasms

Seven studies reported health utility values for cancer patients ranging from 0.62 to 0.90 (26, 28–33). The highest utility value was in early-stage prostate cancer patients using the crosswalk UK value set (29), while the lowest value was in colorectal cancer patients, 49.7% of whom had stage III–IV disease, applying the China value set (28). The EQ-5D VAS scores ranged from 56.2 to 77.5 in two studies (30, 32). The decrease in health utility in cancer patients was mainly due to problems related to the pain/discomfort dimension of the EQ-5D-5L. As the cancer progressed, the health utility value decreased.

The pooled utility value of cancer patients was 0.75 (95% CI = 0.68–0.82, heterogeneity I2 = 96%, P <0.01) using the random-effect model, and it was 0.80 (95% CI = 0.78–0.81) using the fixed-effect model (Figure 2B).

 Multiple Sclerosis

The health utility ranged from 0.31 to 0.78 for multiple sclerosis patients in six studies (34–39). The upper and lower utility values were generated with the crosswalk France value set (35) and the crosswalk UK value set (39), respectively. The study with the highest value (39) reported a shorter disease duration (9 vs. 15 years) than the study with the lowest utility value (35). In addition, the former had a higher proportion of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients than the latter (71.5 vs. 52.8%). EQ-5D VAS scores ranged from 58.3 to 78.0 in five studies (35–39). Pain/discomfort and usual activities were the dimensions with the most reported problems among multiple sclerosis patients.

The meta-analytic utility estimate of multiple sclerosis patients was 0.56 (95% CI = 0.47–0.66, heterogeneity I2 = 99%, P <0.01) using the random-effect model, and it was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.66–0.68) using the fixed-effect model (Figure 2C).

 Cardiovascular Disease

For cardiovascular disease patients, the health utility values ranged from 0.56 to 0.85 in eight studies (26, 40–46). The lowest value was derived from the Chinese value set (45), while the study with the highest value did not report the value set used (40). In the study with the highest utility value (40), all patients were evaluated 4 years after cardiac arrest, and the proportion of men was 80%. In the study with the lowest value, the patients had atrial fibrillation; 43% of them were men, and 23% had diabetes mellitus (45). Berg et al. (41) compared utility values among nine subgroups of patients with different cardiovascular diseases. Among these subgroups, heart transplant patients had the highest value, which was 0.82, while arrhythmia patients had the lowest value, which was 0.70. The EQ-5D VAS scores ranged from 61.4 to 77.8 in six studies (26, 40–44). Anxiety/depression and pain/discomfort were the dimensions with the most reported problems among cardiovascular disease patients.

The pooled utility value of cardiovascular disease patients was 0.77 (95% CI = 0.75–0.79, heterogeneity I2 = 99%, P <0.01) using the random-effect model, and it was 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75–0.76) using the fixed-effect model (Figure 2D).

 COPD

For patients with COPD, the health utility values ranged from 0.68 to 0.79 in four studies (47–50). The crosswalk US value set and UK standard EQ-5D-5L value set were used in the studies that reported the highest utility value (49) and the lowest value (50), respectively. The mean age of COPD patients in the study reporting the lowest utility was 70.4 years, and the mean predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was 49.8% (50). Meanwhile, the patients in the study with the highest value had a younger mean age (68.5 years old) and a better predicted FEV1 (49). The EQ-5D VAS scores ranged from 60.5 to 70.6 in four studies (47–50). Mobility was the dimension with the most problems affecting the HRQoL of COPD patients based on EQ-5D-5L. In addition, as the predicted FEV1 decreased, the health utility value in COPD patients decreased.

The synthesized utility value of COPD patients was 0.75 (95% CI = 0.71–0.80, heterogeneity I2 = 96%, P <0.01) using the random-effect model, and it was 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75–0.77) using the fixed-effect model (Figure 2E).

 HIV Infection

The health utility values of patients infected with HIV ranged from 0.65 to 0.90 in four studies (51–54), and both extreme values were derived with a crosswalk value set [Thailand (53) and Spain (54)]. The study (54) with the highest utility value involved patients in relatively good condition and without any comorbidities, while the study (53), with the lowest value focused on patients who had symptomatic HIV infections. The EQ-5D VAS scores ranged from 68.8 to 88.6 in four studies (51–54). The decrease in utility in HIV-infected patients was mainly due to problems related to the anxiety/depression dimension of the EQ-5D-5L.

The pooled utility value of patients infected with HIV was 0.84 (95% CI = 0.80–0.88, heterogeneity I2 = 83%, P <0.01) using the random-effect model, and it was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80–0.82) using the fixed-effect model (Figure 2F).

 Chronic Kidney Disease

For chronic kidney disease patients, the health utility values ranged from 0.37 to 0.89 in three studies (55–57). The Japan value set and crosswalk UK value set were used to calculate the highest utility value (56) and the lowest value (57), respectively. The mean age of chronic kidney disease patients in the study reporting the highest value was 49.8 years old, and all of them had received kidney transplants (56), while those in the study reporting the lowest value were 59.4 years old, and 33.7% of them had been on dialysis for 4 years or longer (57). One study (57) reported that the EQ-5D VAS score was 59.4. Among the five dimensions, self-care was the dimension with the most reported problems among chronic kidney disease patients.

The meta-analytic utility estimate of chronic kidney disease was 0.70 (95% CI = 0.48–0.92, heterogeneity I2 = 99%, P <0.01) using the random-effect model, and it was 0.76 (95% CI = 0.74–0.78) using the fixed-effect model (Figure 2G).

 Fracture

The health utility values of patients with fractures ranged from 0.56 to 0.88 in the three studies (59–61). However, neither of the studies that reported the maximum and minimum values described the value sets used (59, 61). The patients in the study reporting the highest value (59) had midshaft clavicular fractures and a much younger mean age (44.5 vs. 73.5 years old) than the osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture patients in the study reporting the lowest value (61). Two studies reported EQ-5D VAS scores of 80.3 (60) and 77.2 (59). No information was available for the dimensions that contributed the most to the HRQoL of fracture patients.

 Other Diseases

For Prader–Willi syndrome, hypertension, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis, actinic keratosis, Parkinson's disease, overactive bladder, hereditary angioedema, spinal cord injury, schizophrenia, hemophilia, asthma, and hepatitis, only two studies reported the health utility values for patients with each disease. For the remaining 29 diseases (87–113), the HRQoL and utility values were only reported by one study each. Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis had the highest utility value of 0.93 (104), while children with Morquio A syndrome, who must use wheelchairs, had the lowest value of −0.18 (88).

Furthermore, two studies compared utility values calculated with different country-specific value sets in the same sample (67, 87). For patients with psoriasis living in central South China (67), value sets for Japan, China, and the UK were used separately to obtain the EQ-5D-5L utility values, and the results were 0.86, 0.90, and 0.90, respectively. van Dongen-Leunis et al. (87) used two EQ-5D-5L country-specific value sets to calculate the health utility of acute leukemia patients, and the value derived from the Dutch value set (0.81) was lower than that derived from the UK value set (0.85). The rest of the studies all used a single value set. Compared with other dimensions, pain/discomfort was the dimension with the most problems reported by patients in most of the studies.

 Discussion

In this study, we reviewed the health utility values in patients with different diseases according to the EQ-5D-5L in cross-sectional surveys. We found that the EQ-5D-5L has been widely applied in populations with specific diseases, including various chronic non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, neoplasms, multiple sclerosis, and cardiovascular disease, and infectious diseases, such as HIV and Dengue fever. The health utility values for a specific disease measured by the EQ-5D-5L differed based on patient characteristics, survey location, the use of country-specific value sets, and other factors. Meta-analyses were performed to synthesized utility data of any specific disease reported in three or more studies.

Health utility measures the preference of people for a given health state and reflects their status with regard to quality of life (1). Sex is one of the factors that affect health utilities (47). There are differences in the perception of health status between males and females, and in most of the included studies that reported sex-specific utilities, men had better HRQoL as measured by the EQ-5D-5L than women. For instance, the utility value was 0.80 for men with COPD and 0.69 for women with COPD, and the proportion of men who reported having problems on all five dimensions was lower than the proportion of women (47). In addition, health utility values decreased as the age of patients increased due to the deterioration of physical function and reduced disease tolerance. Among patients with COPD, for example, the utility value for patients under 65 years of age (0.77) was lower than that for patients who were 65 years old and older (0.79) (48).

In general, the severity of disease is reflected by the magnitude of the health utility value. The variation in values measured by EQ-5D-5L for the same disease under different conditions reflects its discriminative ability. As the disease progresses, the utility value decreases. Alvarado-Bolaños et al. (70) used Hoehn and Yahr staging to categorize Parkinson's disease patients into groups with mild, moderate, and severe disease, and the utility values were 0.77, 0.65, and 0.47, respectively. In addition, the number of comorbidities and the different types of comorbidities substantially affect the HRQoL of patents. Patients who have comorbidities usually report a lower utility value than those without comorbidities. Van Duin et al. (54) reported that the utility value was 0.90 in patients with HIV infections who did not have any comorbidities; however, it was reduced to 0.84 when patients had comorbid diseases. In Al-Jabi's study (58), for hypertension patients with one, two, and three or more comorbidities, the utility values were 0.81, 0.73, and 0.66, respectively.

Various living environments result in different lifestyles, which may influence HRQoL and health utility. Zyoud et al. (57) reported that among patients with end-stage renal disease in Palestine, those living in villages had a higher mean utility value than those living in cities (0.44 vs. 0.29). In another study (44), among patients with cardiovascular disease, the utility value was a little bit higher for those living in urban Vietnam than those in rural areas (0.82 vs. 0.81).

To calculate health utility, the target patients' responses to the EQ-5D-5L and a country-specific value set are needed. The health preferences of patients living in different countries are affected by their social environment, living standards, and health system. Therefore, the EQ-5D-5L value sets estimated based on residents' preferences for health states vary across countries or regions. Different results can be observed in the same sample when various country value sets are used to calculate health utility values. In the same sample of patients with acute leukemia, van Dongen-Leunis et al. (87) reported that the value obtained with the Dutch value set was higher than that obtained with the UK value set. In countries where the EQ-5D-5L utility value set has been estimated, it is more appropriate to use the local value set. Before any standard country-specific EQ-5D-5L value set was published, the crosswalk method developed by van Hout et al. (13) in 2012 was an alternative means of calculating health utility measured by EQ-5D-5L. For cost-utility analyses performed in England, the NICE recommends the use of the crosswalk method to obtain EQ-5D-5L utility values and calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) because there are some concerns about the current standard value set published by Devlin et al. (114). In this review, a crosswalk value set was used in half of the studies to calculate utility values due to the lack of a local standard EQ-5D-5L value set when the survey was conducted. Therefore, the crosswalk value set is still important for researchers to calculate health utility.

The heterogeneity of health utility derived from different studies for any specific disease is significant. Although, this may lead to some issues of the direct comparison among these studies, the trend of variation and the influence factors of health utility can be observed. In addition, to perform CUA, different sources of health utilities are need to be identified and applied in the model (1). The summarization and review of health utility for different diseases are helpful and useful.

There are some limitations of this study. Among the 50 different diseases analyzed in this review, nearly half of them were only discussed in one study each. The included studies were limited to those published in English. In addition, some of the studies did not describe the value set used. This review focused on health utility measured by the EQ-5D-5L in cross-sectional studies, and the comparison of different utility-based instruments (i.e., SF-6D, HUI) in populations with specific diseases needs further exploration.

A deeper understanding of the HRQoL and health utility of patients with different diseases facilitates the provision of a more appropriate range of services for disease management and treatment. In addition, health utility is used for HRQoL weighting when calculating QALYs. QALY is used as the outcome measure in CUA and plays an important role in health technology assessments (12). The summarization of health utility from various sources provides information to perform CUA which could inform health decision making and the reasonable allocation of health resources.

 Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

 Author Contributions

TZ, HG, and AM designed this study protocol. HG, AM, and TZ conceived the literature strategies. LW and MR reviewed the title/abstract independently. TZ and LW performed the original study review. TZ, HG, and YZ extracted and analyzed the data from included studies. TZ and MR assessed the methodological quality with AHRQ checklists. TZ and YZ contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All the authors approved the final version of this systematic review.

 Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.675523/full#supplementary-material

 References Brazier J Ara R Azzabi I Busschbach J Chevrou-Séverac H Crawford B . Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. (2019) 22:267–75. 10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.00430832964 Rabin R de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. (2001) 33:337–43. 10.3109/0785389010900208711491192 Brazier J Roberts J Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. (2002) 21:271–92. 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-811939242 Horsman J Furlong W Feeny D Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2003) 1:54. 10.1186/1477-7525-1-5414613568 Ara R Wailoo A. Using health state utility values in models exploring the cost-effectiveness of health technologies. Value Health. (2012) 15:971–74. 10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.00322999149 Wolowacz SE Briggs A Belozeroff V Clarke P Doward L Goeree R . Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. (2016) 19:704–19. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.06.00127712695 Wisløff T Hagen G Hamidi V Movik E Klemp M Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. (2014) 32:367–75. 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z24477679 Herdman M Gudex C Lloyd A Janssen M Kind P Parkin D . Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. (2011) 20:1727–36. 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x21479777 Kim SH Kim HJ Lee SI Jo MW. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res. (2012) 21:1065–73. 10.1007/s11136-011-0018-121947656 Scalone L Ciampichini R Fagiuoli S Gardini I Fusco F Gaeta L . Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. (2013) 22:1707–6. 10.1007/s11136-012-0318-023192232 EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide. (2019). Available online at: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides (accessed January 01, 2021). EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-5L Valuation: Standard Value Sets. Available online at: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/valuation-standard-value-sets/ (accessed January 03, 2021). van Hout B Janssen MF Feng YS Kohlmann T Busschbach J Golicki D . Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. (2012) 15:708–15. 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.00822867780 Natasya A Andrajati R Sauriasari R.Cross-sectional study of association between glycemic control and quality of life among diabetic patients. Int J Pharmaceut. (2018) 10:92–6. 10.22159/ijap.2018.v10s1.19 Sothornwit J Srisawasdi G Suwannakin A Sriwijitkamol A. Decreased health-related quality of life in patients with diabetic foot problems. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. (2018) 11:35–43. 10.2147/DMSO.S15430429563821 Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. (2009) 6:e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.100009720171303 AHQR. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. (2008). Available online at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/cer-methods-guide/overview/ (accessed February 02, 2021). Pan CW Wang S Wang P Xu CL Song E. Diabetic retinopathy and health-related quality of life among Chinese with known type 2 diabetes mellitus. Qual Life Res. (2018) 27:2087–93. 10.1007/s11136-018-1876-629740784 Lamu AN Chen G Gamst-Klaussen T Olsen JA. Do country-specific preference weights matter in the choice of mapping algorithms? The case of mapping the Diabetes-39 onto eight country-specific EQ-5D-5L value sets. Qual Life Res. (2018) 27:1801–14. 10.1007/s11136-018-1840-529569014 Adibe MO Anosike C Nduka SO Isah A. Evaluation of health status of type 2 diabetes outpatients receiving care in a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. Pharmacoecon Open. (2018) 2:337–45. 10.1007/s41669-017-0056-x29623631 Arifin B Idrus LR van Asselt ADI Purba FD Perwitasari DA Thobari JA . Health-related quality of life in Indonesian type 2 diabetes mellitus outpatients measured with the Bahasa version of EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. (2019) 28:1179–90. 10.1007/s11136-019-02105-z30649698 Schmitt A Reimer A Kulzer B Icks A Paust R Roelver KM . Measurement of psychological adjustment to diabetes with the diabetes acceptance scale. J Diabetes Complications. (2018) 32:384–92. 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2018.01.00529439862 Collado Mateo D García Gordillo MA Olivares PR Adsuar JC. Normative values of EQ-5D-5L for diabetes patients from Spain. Nutr Hosp. (2015) 32:1595–602. 10.3305/nh.2015.32.4.960526545523 Khatib ST Hemadneh MK Hasan SA Khazneh E Zyoud SH. Quality of life in hemodialysis diabetic patients: a multicenter cross-sectional study from Palestine. BMC Nephrol. (2018) 19:49. 10.1186/s12882-018-0849-x29490623 Zyoud SH Al-Jabi SW Sweileh WM Arandi DA Dabeek SA Esawi HH . Relationship of treatment satisfaction to health-related quality of life among Palestinian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: findings from a cross-sectional study. J Clin Transl Endocrinol. (2015) 2:66–71. 10.1016/j.jcte.2015.03.00229159112 Xu RH Cheung AWL Wong ELY. The relationship between shared decision-making and health-related quality of life among patients in Hong Kong SAR, China. Int J Qual Health Care. (2017) 29:534–40. 10.1093/intqhc/mzx06728586442 Pan CW Sun HP Zhou HJ Ma Q Xu Y Luo N . Valuing health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Med Decis Making. (2016) 36:234–41. 10.1177/0272989X1560690326400873 Huang W Yang J Liu Y Liu C Zhang X Fu W . Assessing health-related quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer using EQ-5D-5L: a cross-sectional study in Heilongjiang of China. BMJ Open. (2018) 8:e022711. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-02271130530472 Gavin AT Donnelly D Donnelly C Drummond FJ Morgan E Gormley GJ . Effect of investigation intensity and treatment differences on prostate cancer survivor's physical symptoms, psychological well-being and health-related quality of life: a two country cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2016) 6:e012952. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-01295227993906 Lloyd AJ Kerr C Penton J Knerer G. Health-related quality of life and health utilities in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: A Survey capturing experiences from a diverse sample of UK patients. Value Health. (2015) 18:1152–57. 10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.01226686802 Philipp-Dormston WG Müller K Novak B Strömer K Termeer C Hammann U . Patient-reported health outcomes in patients with non-melanoma skin cancer and actinic keratosis: results from a large-scale observational study analysing effects of diagnoses and disease progression. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. (2018) 32:1138–46. 10.1111/jdv.1470329150868 Noel CW Lee DJ Kong Q Xu W Simpson C Brown D . Comparison of health state utility measures in patients with head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2015) 141:696–703. 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.131426204439 Mastboom MJ Planje R van de Sande MA. The patient perspective on the impact of tenosynovial giant cell tumors on daily living: crowdsourcing study on physical function and quality of life. Interact J Med Res. (2018) 7:e4. 10.2196/ijmr.932529475829 Zhang Y Taylor BV Simpson S Jr Blizzard L van der Mei I. Patient-reported outcomes are worse for progressive-onset multiple sclerosis than relapse-onset multiple sclerosis, particularly early in the disease process. Eur J Neurol. (2019) 26:155–61. 10.1111/ene.1378630133059 Algahtani HA Shirah BH Alzahrani FA Abobaker HA Alghanaim NA Manlangit JS Jr. Quality of life among multiple sclerosis patients in Saudi Arabia. Neurosciences. (2017) 22:261–6. 10.17712/nsj.2017.4.2017027333966564 Fogarty E Walsh C Adams R McGuigan C Barry M Tubridy N. Relating health-related quality of life to disability progression in multiple sclerosis, using the 5-level EQ-5D. Mult Scler. (2013) 19:1190–96. 10.1177/135245851247486023401128 Carney P O'Boyle D Larkin A McGuigan C O'Rourke K. Societal costs of multiple sclerosis in Ireland. J Med Econ. (2018) 21:425–37. 10.1080/13696998.2018.142710029320900 Nohara C Hase M Liebert R Wu N. The burden of multiple sclerosis in Japan. J Med Econ. (2017) 20:1290–98. 10.1080/13696998.2017.1373653 Barin L Salmen A Disanto G Babačić H Calabrese P Chan A . The disease burden of Multiple sclerosis from the individual and population perspective: which symptoms matter most? Mult Scler Relat Disord. (2018) 25:112–21. 10.1016/j.msard.2018.07.01330059895 Buanes EA Gramstad A Søvig KK Hufthammer KO Flaatten H Husby T . Cognitive function and health-related quality of life four years after cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. (2015) 89:13–8. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.12.02125596374 Berg SK Rasmussen TB Thrysoee L Lauberg A Borregaard B Christensen AV . DenHeart: differences in physical and mental health across cardiac diagnoses at hospital discharge. J Psychosom Res. (2017) 94:1–9. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.01.00328183396 Squire I Glover J Corp J Haroun R Kuzan D Gielen V. Impact of HF on HRQoL in patients and their caregivers in England: results from the ASSESS study. Br J Cardiol. (2017) 24:30–34. 10.5837/bjc.2017.007 Meroño O Cladellas M Ribas-Barquet N Poveda P Recasens L Bazán V . Iron deficiency is a determinant of functional capacity and health-related quality of life 30 days after an acute coronary syndrome. Rev Esp Cardiol. (2017) 70:363–70. 10.1016/j.rec.2016.10.00427838349 Tran BX Moir MP Thai TPT Nguyen LH Ha GH Nguyen THT . Socioeconomic inequalities in health-related quality of life among patients with cardiovascular diseases in Vietnam. Biomed Res Int. (2018) 2018:2643814. 10.1155/2018/264381430356405 Wang Z Chen Z Wang X Zhang L Li S Tian Y . The disease burden of atrial fibrillation in China from a national cross-sectional survey. Am J Cardiol. (2018) 122:793–98. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.05.01530049467 De Smedt D Clays E Höfer S Oldridge N Kotseva K Maggioni AP . Validity and reliability of the HeartQoL questionnaire in a large sample of stable coronary patients: The EUROASPIRE IV Study of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol. (2016) 23:714–21. 10.1177/204748731560483726358990 Garcia-Gordillo MÁ Collado-Mateo D Olivares PR Adsuar JC Merellano-Navarro E. A cross-sectional assessment of health-related quality of life among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Iran J Public Health. (2017) 46:1046–53.28894705 Igarashi A Fukuchi Y Hirata K Ichinose M Nagai A Nishimura M . COPD uncovered: a cross-sectional study to assess the socioeconomic burden of COPD in Japan. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. (2018) 13:2629–41. 10.2147/COPD.S16747630214181 Lin FJ Pickard AS Krishnan JA Joo MJ Au DH Carson SS . Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2014) 14:78. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-7824934150 Nolan CM Longworth L Lord J Canavan JL Jones SE Kon SS . The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax. (2016) 71:493–500. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-20778227030578 Keaei M Kuhlmann J Conde R Evers SM Gonzalez J Govers M . Health-related quality of life of patients with HIV/AIDS in Bogotá, Colombia. Value Health Reg Issues. (2016) 11:68–72. 10.1016/j.vhri.2016.05.00127986201 Dang AK Nguyen LH Nguyen AQ Tran BX Tran TT Latkin CA . Physical activity among HIV-positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in Hanoi and Nam Dinh, Vietnam: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2018) 8:e020688. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-02068829748343 Tran BX Ohinmaa A Nguyen LT. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2012) 10:132. 10.1186/1477-7525-10-13223116130 Van Duin MJ Conde R Wijnen B Evers SM Gonzalez-Rodriguez JL Govers MJ . The impact of comorbidities on costs, utilities and health-related quality of life among HIV patients in a clinical setting in Bogotá. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. (2017) 17:303–10. 10.1080/14737167.2017.124618527730842 Yang F Lau T Lee E Vathsala A Chia KS Luo N. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur J Health Econ. (2015) 16:1019–26. 10.1007/s10198-014-0664-725519850 Hiragi S Goto R Tanaka Y Matsuyama Y Sawada A SakaI K . Estimating the net utility gains among donors and recipients of adult living donor kidney transplant. Transplant Proc. (2019) 51:676–83. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2019.01.04930979450 Zyoud SH Daraghmeh DN Mezyed DO Khdeir RL Sawafta MN Ayaseh NA . Factors affecting quality of life in patients on haemodialysis: a cross-sectional study from Palestine. BMC Nephrol. (2016) 17:44. 10.1186/s12882-016-0257-z27117687 Al-Jabi SW Zyoud SH Sweileh WM Wildali AH Saleem HM Aysa HA . Relationship of treatment satisfaction to health-related quality of life: findings from a cross-sectional survey among hypertensive patients in Palestine. Health Expect. (2015) 18:3336–48. 10.1111/hex.1232425484002 van der Linde RA Beetz I van Helden SH. Plating for midshaft clavicular fractures: the impact on quality of life and functional outcome. Injury. (2017) 48:2778–83. 10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.03229100661 Larsen P Elsoe R Graven-Nielsen T Laessoe U Rasmussen S. Decreased muscle strength is associated with impaired long-term functional outcome after intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fracture. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. (2015) 41:673–81. 10.1007/s00068-014-0488-226038009 Kim HJ Park S Park SH Park J Chang BS Lee CK . Prevalence of frailty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture and its association with numbers of fractures. Yonsei Med J. (2018) 59:317–24. 10.3349/ymj.2018.59.2.31729436202 Chevreul K Berg Brigham K Clément MC Poitou C Tauber M Members of the BURQOL-RD Research Network listed in the Online Appendix. Economic burden and health-related quality of life associated with Prader-Willi syndrome in France. J Intellect Disabil Res. (2016) 60:879–90. 10.1111/jir.1228827174598 López-Bastida J Linertová R Oliva-Moreno J Posada-de-la-Paz M Serrano-Aguilar P Kanavos P . Social/economic costs and health-related quality of life in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome in Europe. Eur J Health Econ. (2016) 17(Suppl 1):99–108. 10.1007/s10198-016-0788-z27038627 Vaizey CJ Gibson PR Black CM Nicholls RJ Weston AR Gaya DR . Disease status, patient quality of life and healthcare resource use for ulcerative colitis in the UK: an observational study. Frontline Gastroenterol. (2014) 5:183–9. 10.1136/flgastro-2013-10040928839768 Gibson PR Vaizey C Black CM Nicholls R Weston AR Bampton P . Relationship between disease severity and quality of life and assessment of health care utilization and cost for ulcerative colitis in Australia: a cross-sectional, observational study. J Crohns Colitis. (2014) 8:598–606. 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.11.01724345767 Yfantopoulos J Chantzaras A Kontodimas S. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res. (2017) 309:357–70. 10.1007/s00403-017-1743-228528371 Zhao Y Li SP Liu L Zhang JL Chen G. Does the choice of tariff matter?: a comparison of EQ-5D-5L utility scores using Chinese, UK, and Japanese tariffs on patients with psoriasis vulgaris in Central South China. Medicine. (2017) 96:e7840. 10.1097/MD.000000000000784028834893 Choi JH Lee SH Kim HR Lee KA. Association of neuropathic-like pain characteristics with clinical and radiographic features in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. (2018) 37:3077–86. 10.1007/s10067-018-4125-z29713968 Chiowchanwisawakit P Thaweeratthakul P Wattanamongkolsil L Srinonprasert V Koolvisoot A Muangchan C . Relationship between health-related quality of life and patient acceptable symptom state with disease activity and functional status in patients with ankylosing spondylitis in Thailand. J Clin Rheumatol. (2019) 25:16–23. 10.1097/RHU.000000000000075029509563 Alvarado-Bolaños A Cervantes-Arriaga A Rodríguez-Violante M Llorens-Arenas R Calderón-Fajardo H Millán-Cepeda R . Convergent validation of EQ-5D-5L in patients with Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Sci. (2015) 358:53–7. 10.1016/j.jns.2015.08.01026276513 García-Gordillo M del Pozo-Cruz B Adsuar JC Sánchez-Martínez FI Abellán-Perpiñán JM. Validation and comparison of 15-D and EQ-5D-5L instruments in a Spanish Parkinson's disease population sample. Qual Life Res. (2014) 23:1315–26. 10.1007/s11136-013-0569-4 Lee KS Choo MS Seo JT Oh SJ Kim HG Ng K . Impact of overactive bladder on quality of life and resource use: results from Korean Burden of Incontinence Study (KOBIS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2015) 13:89. 10.1186/s12955-015-0274-926113125 Lloyd S Crawford G Mcskimming P Grifi M Greenwell TJ Ockrim J. The impact of age, gender and severity of overactive bladder wet on quality of life, productivity, treatment patterns and satisfaction. J Clin Urol. (2017) 10:1–10. 10.1177/2051415817710111 Nordenfelt P Nilsson M Lindfors A Wahlgren CF Björkander J. Health-related quality of life in relation to disease activity in adults with hereditary angioedema in Sweden. Allergy Asthma Proc. (2017) 38:447–55. 10.2500/aap.2017.38.408728855002 Nordenfelt P Dawson S Wahlgren CF Lindfors A Mallbris L Björkander J. Quantifying the burden of disease and perceived health state in patients with hereditary angioedema in Sweden. Allergy Asthma Proc. (2014) 35:185–90. 10.2500/aap.2014.35.373824411585 Whitehurst DGT Mittmann N Noonan VK Dvorak MF Bryan S. Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals' capacity to walk: a comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Qual Life Res. (2016) 25:2481–96. 10.1007/s11136-016-1297-327098235 Engel L Bryan S Noonan VK Whitehurst DGT. Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between standardized instruments that measure health-related quality of life, capability well-being and subjective well-being: an application in the context of spinal cord injury. Soc Sci Med. (2018) 213:154–64. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.04130081357 Buckner TW Witkop M Guelcher C Sidonio R Kessler CM Clark DB . Impact of hemophilia B on quality of life in affected men, women, and caregivers-Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in the B-HERO-S study. Eur J Haematol. (2018) 100:592–602. 10.1111/ejh.1305529505680 Kempton CL Recht M Neff A Wang M Buckner TW Soni A . Impact of pain and functional impairment in US adults with haemophilia: patient-reported outcomes and musculoskeletal evaluation in the pain, functional impairment and quality of life (P-FiQ) study. Haemophilia. (2018) 24:261–70. 10.1111/hae.1337729218759 Arraras JI Ibañez B Basterra I Pereda N Martin M Iribarren S. Determinants of quality of life in Spanish outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Eur J Psychiat. (2017) 32:113–21. 10.1016/j.ejpsy.2017.11.001 Kitic AP Jankovic S. Quality of life in institutionalized patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Psychol Klin. (2018) 18:5–11. 10.15557/PiPK.2018.0001 Tennvall GR Norlin JM Malmberg I Erlendsson AM Hædersdal M. Health related quality of life in patients with actinic keratosis–an observational study of patients treated in dermatology specialist care in Denmark. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2015) 13:111. 10.1186/s12955-015-0295-426220553 Gray LA Hernández Alava M Wailoo AJ. Development of methods for the mapping of utilities using mixture models: mapping the AQLQ-S to the EQ-5D-5L and the HUI3 in patients with asthma. Value Health. (2018) 21:748–57. 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.01729909881 Hernandez G Dima AL Pont À Garin O Martí-Pastor M Alonso J . Impact of asthma on women and men: comparison with the general population using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. PLoS ONE. (2018) 13:e0202624. 10.1371/journal.pone.020262430138415 Wong LL Fisher HF Stocken DD Rice S Khanna A Heneghan MA . The impact of autoimmune hepatitis and its treatment on health utility. Hepatology. (2018) 68:1487–97. 10.1002/hep.3003129663477 Cook N Geier A Schmid A Hirschfield G Kautz A Schattenberg JM . The patient perspectives on future therapeutic options in nash and patient needs. Front Med. (2019) 6:61. 10.3389/fmed.2019.0006131106203 van Dongen-Leunis A Redekop WK Uyl-de Groot CA. Which questionnaire should be used to measure quality-of-life utilities in patients with acute leukemia? An evaluation of the validity and interpretability of the EQ-5D-5L and preference-based questionnaires derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health. (2016) 19:834–43. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.05.00827712712 Hendriksz CJ Lavery C Coker M Ucar SK Jain M Bell L . Burden of disease in patients with Morquio A syndrome: results from an international patient-reported outcomes survey. Orphanet J Rare Dis. (2014) 9:32. 10.1186/1750-1172-9-3224602160 Andersson F Anderson P Holm-Larsen T Piercy J Everaert K Holbrook T. Assessing the impact of nocturia on health-related quality-of-life and utility: results of an observational survey in adults. J Med Econ. (2016) 19:1200–06. 10.1080/13696998.2016.121113627388879 Mealy MA Boscoe A Caro J Levy M. Assessment of patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder using the EQ-5D. Int J MS Care. (2019) 21:129–34. 10.7224/1537-2073.2017-07631191178 Nikiphorou E Ramiro S van der Heijde D Norton S Moltó A Dougados M . Association of comorbidities in spondyloarthritis with poor function, work disability, and quality of life: results from the assessment of spondyloarthritis international society comorbidities in spondyloarthritis study. Arthritis Care Res. (2018) 70:1257–62. 10.1002/acr.2346829125900 Van Assche G Peyrin-Biroulet L Sturm A Gisbert JP Gaya DR Bokemeyer B . Burden of disease and patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in the last 12 months - Multicenter European cohort study. Dig Liver Dis. (2016) 48:592–600. 10.1016/j.dld.2016.01.01126935454 Mijnarends DM Schols JMGA Halfens RJG Meijers J Luiking YC Verlaan S . Burden-of-illness of Dutch community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia: health related outcomes and costs. Eur Geriatr Med. (2016) 7:276–84. 10.1016/j.eurger.2015.12.011 Tran BX Thu Vu G Hoang Nguyen L Tuan Le Nguyen A Thanh Tran T Thanh Nguyen B . Cost-of-illness and the health-related quality of life of patients in the dengue fever outbreak in Hanoi in 2017. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:1174. 10.3390/ijerph1506117429874790 Chevreul K Berg Brigham K Michel M Rault G BURQOL-RD Research Network. Costs and health-related quality of life of patients with cystic fibrosis and their carers in France. J Cyst Fibros. (2015) 14:384–91. 10.1016/j.jcf.2014.11.00625620688 Collado-Mateo D Chen G Garcia-Gordillo MA Iezzi A Adsuar JC Olivares PR . Fibromyalgia and quality of life: mapping the revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire to the preference-based instruments. Health Qual Life Outcomes. (2017) 15:114. 10.1186/s12955-017-0690-028558703 Chevreul K Berg Brigham K Brunn M des Portes V BURQOL-RD Research Network. Fragile X syndrome: economic burden and health-related quality of life of patients and caregivers in France. J Intellect Disabil Res. (2015) 59:1108–20. 10.1111/jir.1221526369667 Juul-Kristensen B Østengaard L Hansen S Boyle E Junge T Hestbaek L. Generalised joint hypermobility and shoulder joint hypermobility, - risk of upper body musculoskeletal symptoms and reduced quality of life in the general population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. (2017) 18:226. 10.1186/s12891-017-1595-028558742 Bewick J Morris S Hopkins C Erskine S Philpott CM. Health utility reporting in chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Clin Otolaryngol. (2018) 43:90–5. 10.1111/coa.1290328498517 Forestier-Zhang L Watts L Turner A Teare H Kaye J Barrett J . Health-related quality of life and a cost-utility simulation of adults in the UK with osteogenesis imperfecta, X-linked hypophosphatemia and fibrous dysplasia. Orphanet J Rare Dis. (2016) 11:160. 10.1186/s13023-016-0538-427894323 Katchamart W Narongroeknawin P Chanapai W Thaweeratthakul P. Health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Rheumatol. (2019) 3:34. 10.1186/s41927-019-0080-9 Román Ivorra JA Fernández-Llanio-Comella N San-Martín-Álvarez A Vela-Casasempere P Saurí-Ferrer I González-de-Julián S . Health-related quality of life in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a Spanish study based on patient reports. Clin Rheumatol. (2019) 38:1857–64. 10.1007/s10067-019-04485-630820696 Aguirre E Kang S Hoare Z Edwards RT Orrell M. How does the EQ-5D perform when measuring quality of life in dementia against two other dementia-specific outcome measures? Qual Life Res. (2016) 25:45–9. 10.1007/s11136-015-1065-926163146 Wong CKH Cheung PWH Samartzis D Luk KD Cheung KMC Lam CLK . Mapping the SRS-22r questionnaire onto the EQ-5D-5L utility score in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0175847. 10.1371/journal.pone.017584728414745 Christensen HN Olsson U From J Breivik H. Opioid-induced constipation, use of laxatives, and health-related quality of life. Scand J Pain. (2016) 11:104–10. 10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.12.00728850447 Vo P Fang J Bilitou A Laflamme AK Gupta S. Patients' perspective on the burden of migraine in Europe: a cross-sectional analysis of survey data in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. J Headache Pain. (2018) 19:82. 10.1186/s10194-018-0907-630203163 Voormolen DC Cnossen MC Polinder S Gravesteijn BY Von Steinbuechel N Real RGL . Prevalence of post-concussion-like symptoms in the general population in Italy, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Brain Inj. (2019) 33:1078–86. 10.1080/02699052.2019.160755731032649 Lim SH He HG Chan SWC. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the acceptance of Chronic Health Conditions (Stoma) Scale for patients with stoma. Cancer Nurs. (2017) 40:E42–9. 10.1097/NCC.000000000000041127472188 Villoro R Merino M Hidalgo-Vega A. Quality of life and use of health care resources among patients with chronic depression. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. (2016) 7:145–55. 10.2147/PROM.S10159527713651 Vermaire JH van Houtem CM Ross JN Schuller AA. The burden of disease of dental anxiety: generic and disease-specific quality of life in patients with and without extreme levels of dental anxiety. Eur J Oral Sci. (2016) 124:454–58. 10.1111/eos.1229027506593 Lane TRA Varatharajan L Fiorentino F Shepherd AC Zimmo L Gohel MS . Truncal varicose vein diameter and patient-reported outcome measures. Br J Surg. (2017) 104:1648–55. 10.1002/bjs.1059828766692 Rencz F Lakatos PL Gulácsi L Brodszky V Kürti Z Lovas S . Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn's disease. Qual Life Res. (2019) 28:141–52. 10.1007/s11136-018-2003-430225788 Chevreul K Brigham KB Gandré C Mouthon L BURQOL-RD Research Network. The economic burden and health-related quality of life associated with systemic sclerosis in France. Scand J Rheumatol. (2015) 44:238–46. 10.3109/03009742.2014.97665325521915 National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Position Statement on Use of the EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England (updated October 2019). Available online at: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l (accessed February 03, 2021).