Evaluating health utility score through direct and indirect methods in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionEuroQol‐5‐dimensions‐5‐levels (EQ‐5D‐5L), visual analog scale (VAS), time trade‐off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG) are used for the assessment of Health Utility Scores (HUS) of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study aimed to determine the overall HUS of CRS, the factors which influence the HUS, and the preferable method.MethodsA cross‐sectional study was conducted. Patients with primary CRS were recruited. Clinical and socioeconomic data together with HUS were assessed. Four HUS scores determined from the four different methods were compared.ResultsA total of 335 patients were enrolled. The overall HUS, as measured by EQ‐5D‐5L, VAS, TTO, and SG, was 0.88 ± 0.14, 0.79 ± 0.17, 0.89 ± 0.15, and 0.86 ± 0.16, respectively. The multivariable linear regression revealed that each increasing 22‐item sinonasal outcome test (SNOT‐22) score predicted a reduction of 0.002 to 0.003 in HUS (all methods, p < 0.01). Patients who scheduled for endoscopic sinus surgery had 0.06 to 0.11 HUS lower than other groups in EQ‐5D‐5L and VAS (all p < 0.05). Higher endoscopy score, age, presence of comorbid airway diseases, and lower education correlated with lower HUS (p < 0.05). Given the HUS results and regression models, the EQ‐5D‐5L is likely the preferable choice.ConclusionThe overall HUS of CRS was approximately 0.79–0.89. High SNOT‐22 score and those who failed medications, presence of comorbid AR/asthma, increased age, high endoscopy score, and low education negatively impacted HUS. Our data suggest that EQ‐5D‐5L is a preferable method for measuring HUS in patients with CRS.