EQ-5D-5L health utility scores in Australian adults with inherited retinal diseases: A cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: Economic evaluations of interventions for ocular disease require utility scores that accurately represent quality of life in the target population. This study aimed to describe the distribution of EQ-5D-5L utility values among Australian adults with symptomatic inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) and to assess the relationship between these scores and vision-related quality of life. METHODS: A survey was administered predominantly online in 2021. Participants completed the EQ-5D-5L general health utility instrument, the EQ vertical visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Self-reported IRD diagnoses were classified as being associated with central or widespread retinal involvement. RESULTS: Responses from 647 participants aged 18-93 years were included, 50.1% were men and 77.6% had an IRD associated with widespread retinal involvement. The majority reported no problems with self-care and no pain/discomfort but did report anxiety/depression and problems with work, study, housework, or family/leisure activities. Most people with widespread involvement reported problems with mobility. Median EQ-5D-5L utility was 0.88 and 0.91 among people with widespread and central involvement, respectively (age and sex-adjusted p = 0.029); and median EQ-VAS was 75 and 80, respectively (adjusted p = 0.003). A moderate curvilinear correlation was observed between EQ-5D-5L and NEI-VFQ-25 composite score (Spearman's ρ 0.69), but not all people with poor vision-related quality of life had low EQ-5D-5L utility values. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D-5L health utility values are correlated with vision-related quality of life among adults with IRDs. However, the EQ-5D-5L may not be sensitive to the full impact of vision impairment on quality of life.

A randomized controlled trial of graded exposure treatment (GET living) for adolescents with chronic pain.

ABSTRACT: Graded exposure treatment (GET) is a theory-driven pain treatment that aims to improve functioning by exposing patients to activities previously feared and avoided. Combining key elements of GET with acceptance-based exposure, GET Living (GL) was developed for adolescents with chronic pain (GL). Based on robust treatment effects observed in our single-case experimental design pilot trial of GL (NCT01974791), we conducted a 2-arm randomized clinical trial comparing GL with multidisciplinary pain management (MPM) comprised of cognitive behavioral therapy and physical therapy for pain management (NCT03699007). A cohort of 68 youth with chronic musculoskeletal pain (M age 14.2 years; 81% female) were randomized to GL or MPM. Owing to COVID-19 restrictions, 54% of participants received zoom video delivered care. Assessments were collected at baseline, discharge, as well as at 3-month and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain-related fear and avoidance. Secondary outcomes were child functional disability and parent protective responses to child pain. As hypothesized, GL improved in primary and secondary outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Contrary to our superiority hypothesis, there was no significant difference between GL and MPM. Patients reported both GL and MPM (in person and video) as credible and were highly satisfied with the treatment experience. Next steps will involve examining the single-case experimental design data embedded in this trial to facilitate an understanding of individual differences in treatment responses (eg, when effects occurred, what processes changed during treatment within the treatment arm). The current findings support GET Living and MPM for youth with chronic pain.

The health care and societal costs of inherited retinal diseases in Australia: a microsimulation modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the health care and societal costs of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modelling study based on primary data - collected in interviews of people with IRDs who had ophthalmic or genetic consultations at the Children's Hospital at Westmead or the Save Sight Institute (both Sydney) during 1 January 2019 - 31 December 2020, and of their carers and spouses - and linked Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual and lifetime costs for people with IRDs and for their carers and spouses, grouped by payer (Australian government, state governments, individuals, private health insurance) and type (health care costs; societal costs: social support, National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), income and taxation, costs associated with caring for family members with IRDs); estimated annual national cost of IRDs. RESULTS: Ninety-four people (74 adults, 20 people under 18 years; 55 girls and women [59%]) and 30 carers completed study surveys (participation rate: adults, 66%; children, 66%; carers, 63%). Total estimated lifetime cost was $5.2 million per person with an IRD, of which 87% were societal and 13% health care costs. The three highest cost items were lost income for people with IRDs ($1.4 million), lost income for their carers and spouses ($1.1 million), and social spending by the Australian government (excluding NDIS expenses: $1.0 million). Annual costs were twice as high for people who were legally blind as for those with less impaired vision ($83 910 v $41 357 per person). The estimated total annual cost of IRDs in Australia was $781 million to $1.56 billion. CONCLUSION: As the societal costs associated with IRDs are much larger than the health care costs, both contributors should be considered when assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with IRDs. The increasing loss of income across life reflects the impact of IRDs on employment and career opportunities.

Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life in Individuals with Inherited Retinal Diseases.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) on quality of life (QoL) using multiattributable health utilities derived from primary patient data. Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Participants: Seventy adult patients (mean age, 42.7 years) with IRD recruited from state-wide services in Australia. Methods: Health utility values were calculated from the Assessment of Quality of Life 8-Dimension (AQoL-8D). Linear regressions were used to analyze the relationship between the 25-item and 39-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaires (NEI-VFQ-25 and NEI-VFQ-39, respectively) and health utilities from the AQoL-8D. Main Outcome Measures: The AQoL-8D utility values were compared between the IRD cohort and population norms. Regressions were used to determine explanatory power of the NEI-VFQ-25 and NEI-VFQ-39 for health utilities from the AQoL-8D. Results: Average health-related utility for patients with IRD was 0.58, significantly lower than population norms of 0.80. The IRD patient scores were significantly lower than population norms for all 8 domains of the AQoL-8D. Regressions showed a statistically significant relationship between the NEI-VFQ-39 and AQoL-8D, with the NEI-VFQ-39 and other clinical data explaining up to 73% of the variation in AQoL-8D values and 69% of the variation in the NEI-VFQ-25 values. Conclusions: Patients with IRD have significantly lower utility values across all dimensions of QoL, with the largest differences in independent living, senses, and relationships. The NEI-VFQ-25 and NEI-VFQ-39 are highly correlated with overall AQoL-8D utilities and, combined with other data, can reasonably estimate QoL utilities required for cost-effectiveness studies.

Development and validation of a Hospital Frailty Risk Score focusing on older people in acute care settings using electronic hospital records: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Older people are increasing users of health care globally. We aimed to establish whether older people with characteristics of frailty and who are at risk of adverse health-care outcomes could be identified using routinely collected data. METHODS: A three-step approach was used to develop and validate a Hospital Frailty Risk Score from International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnostic codes. First, we carried out a cluster analysis to identify a group of older people (≥75 years) admitted to hospital who had high resource use and diagnoses associated with frailty. Second, we created a Hospital Frailty Risk Score based on ICD-10 codes that characterised this group. Third, in separate cohorts, we tested how well the score predicted adverse outcomes and whether it identified similar groups as other frailty tools. FINDINGS: In the development cohort (n=22 139), older people with frailty diagnoses formed a distinct group and had higher non-elective hospital use (33·6 bed-days over 2 years compared with 23·0 bed-days for the group with the next highest number of bed-days). In the national validation cohort (n=1 013 590), compared with the 429 762 (42·4%) patients with the lowest risk scores, the 202 718 (20·0%) patients with the highest Hospital Frailty Risk Scores had increased odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 1·71, 95% CI 1·68-1·75), long hospital stay (6·03, 5·92-6·10), and 30-day readmission (1·48, 1·46-1·50). The c statistics (ie, model discrimination) between individuals for these three outcomes were 0·60, 0·68, and 0·56, respectively. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score showed fair overlap with dichotomised Fried and Rockwood scales (kappa scores 0·22, 95% CI 0·15-0·30 and 0·30, 0·22-0·38, respectively) and moderate agreement with the Rockwood Frailty Index (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0·41, 95% CI 0·38-0·47). INTERPRETATION: The Hospital Frailty Risk Score provides hospitals and health systems with a low-cost, systematic way to screen for frailty and identify a group of patients who are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and for whom a frailty-attuned approach might be useful. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.