Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2.

A considerable debate persists in the literature about whose preferences should be considered in the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years. Some suggest considering only the preferences of the general population, while others advocate for the consideration of those of patients or a combination of both. This study aims to inform and measure the differences in health preferences between cancer patients and the general population in Quebec. A total of 60,976 observations representing the preferences of the general population for various health states were collected and used to develop a new value set using the SF-6Dv2. This value set was generated by combining 34,299 observations with time trade-off (TTO) and 26,677 observations with discrete choice experiment (DCE). Utility scores derived from this value set were compared to those of patients' preferences from a new value set in breast and colorectal patients for the SF-6Dv2. For both patients and the general population, the 'Pain' dimension was the highest contributor to the utility score. However, noticeable differences were observed in the estimates. Estimates of levels 2 and 3 were generally lower for cancer patients, while they were more likely to have greater estimates in severe levels. Significant differences in utility scores were also noticed with the general population showing higher mean utility scores for the same health states. These differences increased as the health states worsened. This study sheds light on the existing differences in preferences between cancer patients and the general population of Quebec for a better consideration in healthcare decision-making.

Cancer population norms using a new value set for the SF-6Dv2 based on the preferences of patients with breast or colorectal cancer in Quebec.

BACKGROUND: Because health resources are limited, health programs should be compared to allow the most efficient ones to emerge. To that aim, health utility instruments have been developed to allow the calculation of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). However, generic instruments, which can be used by any individual regardless of their health profile, typically consider the preferences of the general population when developing their value set. Consequently, they are often criticized for lacking sensitivity in certain domains, such as cancer. In response, the latest version of the Short Form 6-Dimension (SF-6Dv2) has been adapted to suit the preferences of patients with breast or colorectal cancer in the Canadian province of Quebec. By extension, our study's aim was to determine cancer population norms of utility among patients with breast or colorectal cancer in Quebec using the SF-6Dv2. METHOD: To determine the cancer population norms, we exploited the data that were used in the development of a new value set for the SF-6Dv2. This value set was developed considering the preferences of patients with breast or colorectal cancer. Stratification by time of data collection (i.e., T1 and T2), sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, sex, body mass index, and self-reported health problems affecting quality of life), and clinical aspects (i.e., cancer site, histopathological classification, cancer stage at diagnosis, modality, and treatment characteristics) was performed. RESULTS: In 353 observations, patients were more likely to have negative utility scores at T1 than at T2. Males had higher mean utility scores than females considering type of cancer and comorbidities. Considering the SF-6Dv2's dimensions, more females than males reported having health issues, most which concerned physical functioning. Significant differences by sex surfaced for all dimensions except "Role Limitation" and "Mental health." Patients with multifocal cancer had the highest mean and median utility values in all cancer sites considered. CONCLUSION: Cancer population norms can serve as a baseline for interpreting the scores obtained by a given population in comparison to the situation of another group. In this way, our results can assist in comparing utility scores among cancer patients with different sociodemographic groups to other patients/populations groups. To our knowledge, our identified utility norms are the first for patients with breast or colorectal cancer from Quebec.

Second Version of the Short Form 6-Dimension Value Set Elicited From Patients With Breast and Colorectal Cancer: A Hybrid Approach.

BACKGROUND: Quality-adjusted life-year instruments help comparison among programs by capturing their effects in terms of utility. Generic instruments are applicable to everyone, and for this reason, they are known to lack sensitivity when measuring gains in some domains. Specific instruments tend to fill this gap but, in domains like cancer, existing instruments are either nonpreferences-based or based on the general population's preferences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study describes the development of a new value set for a well-known and highly used generic instrument, the Second Version of the Short Form 6-Dimension, to better consider the preferences of patients with cancer. In this aim, a hybrid approach combining the time trade-off and the discrete choice experiment was used. The population of interest was the Quebec population, Canada, with breast or colorectal cancer. Their preferences were elicited in 2 periods: before (T1) and 8 days after the beginning of a chemotherapy procedure (T2). RESULTS: A total of 2808 observations for the time trade-off and 2520 observations for the discrete choice experiment were used. The parsimonious model encompassing the 2 periods was the preferred model. The new value set allows a greater utility range than the EQ-5D-5L and the Second Version of the Short Form 6-Dimension reference value sets and helps in better considering patients experiencing severe health situations. A good correlation between these 2 instruments and other specific cancer instruments (ie, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, QLU-C10D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) was observed. Significative differences in utility values were also noted within periods and types of cancer.

Single-drug immunosuppression is associated with noninferior medium-term survival in pediatric heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Patients are usually maintained on at least 2 immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) after the first year post heart transplant. Anecdotally, some children are switched to single-drug monotherapy (a single ISD) for various reasons and varying durations. Outcomes associated with differences in immunosuppression after heart transplantation are unknown for children. OBJECTIVES: A priori we defined a noninferiority hypothesis for monotherapy compared to ≥2 ISDs. The primary outcome was graft failure, a composite of death and retransplantation. Secondary outcomes included rejection, infection, malignancy, cardiac allograft vasculopathy and dialysis. METHODS: This international, multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study used data from the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society. We included patients who underwent first-time heart transplant <18 years of age between 1999 and 2020 with ≥1 year of follow-up data available. RESULTS: Our analysis included 3493 patients with a median time post-transplant of 6.7 years. There were 893 patients (25.6%) switched to monotherapy at least once with the remaining 2600 patients always on ≥2 ISDs. The median time on monotherapy after the first year post-transplant was 2.8 years (range 1.1-5.9 years). We found an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 (95%CI: 0.47-0.88) favoring monotherapy compared to ≥2 ISDs (p = 0.002). There were no meaningful differences in the incidence of secondary outcomes between groups, except for a lower rate of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in patients on monotherapy (HR 0.58, 95%CI: 0.45-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: For pediatric heart transplant recipients placed on monotherapy, immunosuppression with a single ISD after the first year post-transplant was noninferior to standard therapy with ≥2 ISDs in the medium term. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: Some children are switched to a single immunosuppressive drug (ISD) for various reasons after heart transplant, but outcomes associated with differences in immunosuppression are unknown for children. We assessed graft failure in children on a single ISD (monotherapy) compared to ≥2 ISDs in a cohort of 3493 children with a first heart transplant. We found an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.65 (95%CI: 0.47-0.88) favoring monotherapy. We concluded that for pediatric heart transplant recipients placed on monotherapy, immunosuppression with a single ISD after the first year post-transplant was non-inferior to standard therapy with ≥2 ISDs in the medium term.