Abstract
Introduction
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic condition that requires lifelong treatment and results in a serious disease burden. Health state utility values (HSUVs) are a valuable tool for quantifying this burden and conducting cost-utility analysis.
Objective
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain estimates of HSUVs in patients with AS, explored potential sources of heterogeneity, and compared pooled patient HSUVs with population norms.
Method
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane database and Scopus until July, 2023 to obtain eligible studies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I checklist.
Results
Forty-two publications involving 11,354 participants were included in this systematic review. The most commonly used instrument is the EQ-5D (38 studies). The estimated HSUVs for patients with AS from all available studies was pooled as 0.62 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.65). The pooled mean utility estimates from the random effects meta-analysis for SF-6D, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and HUI3 were 0.65 (95% CI 0.62,0.68), 0.63 (95% CI 0.59,0.66), 0.60 (95% CI 0.42,0.79), and 0.48 (95% CI 0.43,0.53), respectively. For the EQ-5D-3L we conducted stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression based on key subgroups. The pooled estimates of EQ-5D-3L were lower for patients published before 2010, with high disease activity, long duration of disease, and in developed countries.
Conclusion
Pooled estimates of HSUVs for people with AS were substantially lower than population norms. These estimates provide robust evidence that can inform the economic evaluation of new therapies for individuals with AS.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a commonly occurring inflammatory rheumatic disease that affects the axial skeleton, which causes characteristic inflammatory back pain that can lead to structural and functional impairment [1, 2]. The prevalence of AS ranges from 9 to 30 per 10,000 in the general population [3], with a gender ratio of approximately 2:1 (male to female) [4]. Severe disease symptoms such as low back pain, stiffness and limited spinal mobility affect patients with AS health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity [5,6,7]. AS is a chronic problem that requires lifelong treatment and manifests in a wide variety of symptoms, often requiring coordinated multidisciplinary treatment by rheumatologists. The optimal intervention for patients with AS needs a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments [8]. The clinical guidelines point out that the primary goal of treating patients with AS is to maximize HRQoL by controlling symptoms, preventing progressive structural damage, and normalizing function as well as social engagement [8].
Health state utility values (HSUVs), a quantitative measure of HRQoL, are quantified on a scale range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), with HSUVs less than 0 indicate the health state considered worse than death [9]. HSUVs can be derived from direct valuation methods (e.g., standard gamble [SG], time trade-off [TTO] or rating scale [RS]), indirect valuation methods (e.g., EQ-5D, short form six dimensions [SF-6D] and assessment of quality of life [AQoL]), or mapping techniques (converting data from non-preferred quality of life instruments to HSUVs). "Mapping" is offered as a second-best solution [10]. HSUVs reflect people’s preferences or feelings towards a specific health state can be quantified and compared across conditions and interventions. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the most commonly used index for economics evaluations, combines length of life with HRQoL, in which time spent in a given state of health is weighted by the corresponding HSUVs—used to represent the "quality" in QALYs [11]. Therefore, high quality estimates of HSUVs is an important base for cost-utility models, decision-making, and determining effects of new treatments on HRQoL [12].
Various generic measures have been applied to assess HSUVs in patients with AS, including the EQ-5D [13], SF-6D [14, 15], AQoL [16], and Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3) [17]. There is a wide range of HSUVs for health states related to AS. The previous cost-effectiveness studies estimated HSUVs in patients with AS based on Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) scores, as well as age and gender [18, 19]. The selection of HSUVs has not been properly considered and the estimates have not been systematically pooled. Using different HSUVs can lead to different cost-utility analysis results [20]. Therefore, it is important to systematically identify a suitable and high quality HSUVs for clinical management and economic evaluation of the disease [21].
Previously, only 1 study conducted a meta-analysis and review of studies using The Medical Outcomes Short-Form-36 questionnaire (SF-36) to measure HRQoL in patients with AS [6]. Therefore, a synthesized study with a large sample size is urgently needed to estimate the magnitude of the impact of AS on HSUVs. The aims of this study are to (1) systematically assess HSUVs and studies quality in patients with AS by reviewing the literature; (2) provide pooled mean HSUVs and then make comparisons with the general population; (3) explore underlying sources of heterogeneity between studies and some of the potential correlates influencing HSUVs.
Methods
Data sources and searches
This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) (Registration number: CRD42019129463) and was conducted followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Table S1) [22]. Databases used in the search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Scopus. The databases were searched from the inception to July 2023. The search used a combination of medical subject headings (MeSH) and text words relating to AS and health utility-specific, details of search strategy was provided in Table S2. References were also checked to identify any studies missed by electronic search. All the titles and abstracts were examined independently by two authors (KTZ and JCF) to identify potentially relevant studies. When the abstract did not provide enough information about the article, the full manuscript was obtained for further examination. Any disagreements were resolved after consideration of the full manuscript and consultation with the third reviewer (SPL).
Eligibility criteria
The search was performed without limitation to epidemiological design and particular treatment intervention. Studies with the following criteria were eligible for this article: patients with a definite diagnosis of AS, full-text articles available in English, clear reporting of HSUVs. We excluded letters or secondary research, and duplicate published studies. Additionally, studies were excluded if they reported only adjusted values rather than mean values of health utility, or if the standard deviation was not reported.
Data extraction and management
Using a pre-tested form, two independent authors (KTZ and JCF) extracted key aspects from the included studies, and differences were resolved through discussion. The following information was recorded: first author, the year of publication, country, study design, interventions, mean age, sex distribution number of respondents and clinical patient characteristics, instruments and mean HSUVs. For intervention studies, baseline HSUVs were used to avoid the effect of intervention on pooling utility values.
Risk of bias
Risk of bias across studies was assessed with the ROBINS-I checklist for missing data [23], and categorized as low, moderate, serious, critical or no information (Table S3). We selected bias due to missing data because this was a common problem in HRQoL studies [24, 25].
Data synthesis and statistical analysis
After critical evaluation, all appropriate studies were included in the subsequent analyses. The HSUVs were pooled by meta-analyses using random-effect models that considered both within-study variation and between-study heterogeneity [26]. We measured residual heterogeneity using a restricted maximum likelihood estimator and quantified it with the I2 statistic [27]. The mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the pooled values were presented. We used histograms to compare the health status scores of patients with AS with the general population.
Subgroups were analyzed to exploring the underlying reasons for the heterogeneity between the different studies. We grouped the included studies into five subgroups (EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI3 and AQoL) based on the instruments used. Histograms were used to compare HSUVs measured by different instruments between patients with AS and the general population. For the most used EQ-5D-3L, we performed stratified meta-analyses based on the mean age of the patients, year of publication, disease activity, disease duration and national economic level. Firstly, according to the age of the patients, three subgroups were formed, 30–40, 41–50, and > 50 years of age. Secondly, the included studies were divided into two subgroups by publication year (with 2012 as the cut-off year, as the publication years of the included studies were 2002–2022). Thirdly, patients with a BASDAI of more than 4 were categorized as having high disease activity, while the others were categorized as having low disease activity [28]. Fourthly, we used a cut-off of 10 years (the median duration of the disease) for the disease duration subgroups. Finally, subgroups of developed and developing countries were formed on the basis of the economic level of the countries in the World Bank's online database.
To further explore underlying sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a random-effects meta-regression of studies using the EQ-5D-3L, with proportion of females, mean patient age, BASDAI score, and publication date as separate covariates. All analyses were conducted using STATA 15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA) and Excel 2021.
Results
Study selection
A total of 7112 records initially identified by the database search underwent title and abstract screening. Based on the screened of abstracts, the full text of 406 were retrieved for further review, of which, 42 studies were eligible and included. The PRISMA flow diagram showing the study screening process is presented in Fig. 1.
Study characteristics
Table 1 summarizes the basic characteristics of the included studies. The first study was published in 2002 [29], and the average number of studies published each year is around 5. Forty-two studies, including 11,354 participants, one of which assessed HSUV using a direct valuation method (RS). The most frequent instruments applied were EQ-5D-3L (35 studies), SF-6D (9 studies), and EQ-5D-5L (3 studies). Studies have been conducted mainly in developed countries, with the highest number of UK and cross-national studies (Figure S1, B). The main study designs were cross-sectional (37 studies) and RCT studies (7 studies). Study sample sizes have a wide variation, ranging from 13 [30] to 1615 [31]. In these studies, the average age of patients with AS was 46 years, with a cluster of ages between 30 and 55 years. Twenty-five and twenty-two studies reported BASDAI and BASFI scores, respectively, both ranging from 1.4 [32] to 7.1 [33] (score range 0–10). The mean duration of disease in patients was 12.6 years, with a median of about 10 years.
Risk of bias assessments
In the risk of bias assessment, the results showed that 28 articles (65.1%) were rated as low risk, 8 articles (18.6%) were rated as moderate risk, and the other studies did not provide information about missing data (Table S3).
Overall pooled estimates
Figure 2 shows the pooled overall HSUVs with categorical estimates by instrument. The estimated HSUVs for patients with AS from all available studies were pooled as 0.62 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.65). The pooled mean utility estimates from the random effects meta-analysis for SF-6D, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and HUI3 were 0.65 (95% CI 0.62,0.68), 0.63 (95% CI 0.59,0.66), 0.60 (95% CI 0.42,0.79), and 0.48 (95% CI 0.43,0.53), respectively. AQoL and RS each had a study with a mean HSUVs of 0.45 and 0.62, respectively. There is heterogeneity in the pooled HSUVs across the different instruments (I2 > 98.0%).
The pooled estimated HSUV values ranged from 21% (SF-6D) to 47% (AQoL) lower than the norms for people aged 45 to 60 years, depending on the measurement instrument (Fig. 3). When choosing the norms, we considered a variety of factors, such as the tariff most used in the included studies, the regions where the studies are clustered, and the countries in which the instruments were developed. Because the majority of the studies used UK population norms, the EQ-5D-3L norms were taken from the UK [34]. The EQ-5D-5L norms are taken from the United States, one of the most recently published standards on the EuroQoL website [35]. SF-6D norms were taken from study in UK where they were developed [36]. AQoL norms are taken from Australia [37], where all of the research was done, and HUI3 norms are taken from Canada [38].
Pooled stratified estimates
Sufficient studies reported HSUVs by sub-group strata for the EQ-5D-3L only. The results of the stratified estimation showed that there were differences in the estimation of HSUVs by publication years, disease activity, disease duration, mean age of patients and national economic level (Fig. 4 and Table S4). Among the 35 studies that included stratified utility values, HSUVs estimates were higher for studies with publication dates after 2012 than for those published before 2012 (0.66 vs. 0.58). The HSUVs of patients in the BASDAI ≥ 4 group was 0.16 lower than in the BASDAI < 4 group. Meanwhile, HSUVs were relatively low in the younger prevalent group (30–40), but the difference between groups was very small. We found that patients from developing countries had better HUSVs than those from developed countries (0.67 vs. 0.62). Lastly, twenty-nine studies reported the duration of disease, and HSUVs were higher for less than ten years (0.66) compared to ten years and above (0.62) of disease.
Meta-regression
Meta-regression across studies of the EQ-5D-3L in patients with AS showed a trend toward increasing patient HSUVs over time (P = 0.042; Figure S2, A). Meanwhile, higher BASDAI scores were associated with lower HSUVs (P < 0.001; Figure S2, B). There were no significant differences in the mean age of patients and the proportion of females on the effect of HSUVs (P > 0.05; Figure S2, C and D). After meta-regression, significant heterogeneity remained (I2 > 96%), indicating that there were other unexplained factors contributing to the between-study differences.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic literature review on HSUVs in patients with AS. This systematic review pooled the best available evidence on quantitative measures of health state preferences in people with AS, with only one study using a direct measure (RS). The pooled mean utility estimates from the random effects meta-analysis for SF-6D, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and HUI3 are 0.65, 0.63, 0.60, and 0.48, respectively. Regardless of which instrument is used, our summary estimates are lower than those of the general population. However, it is important to be aware that, consistent with other studies [39], there was considerable heterogeneity among the studies we included.
Compared with other inflammatory rheumatic diseases, HSUVs in health states in AS appear similar to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (0.66) [40] and psoriatic arthritis patients with presence of enthesitis (0.65) [41]. On the one hand, that is because psoriatic arthritis and AS are subtypes of spondyloarthritis [42], and psoriatic arthritis patients with presence of enthesitis symptomatology may have strong similarities with AS. On the other hand, there is also a review confirming that the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe pain or mood impairments is similar between the AS and rheumatoid arthritis groups, which explains the agreement of HSUVs between the two disorders [43]. As compared to other health conditions, HSUVs of patients with AS appear similar to patients with after ≥ 3 months following stroke [44], stage IV melanoma [25], and moderate depression [45]. These comparisons suggest that the impact of AS on patient's HRQoL is substantial and highly burdensome.
We conducted to explore the factors associated with HSUVs affecting patients with AS. Over the past two decades, the diagnosis and treatment of AS have continued to improve [46], and patient management has become more standardized, which explains why the publication year has influenced the HSUVs of patients with AS. Then, we selected BASDAI, which has been widely used in clinical practice for patients with AS, to define disease activity [47]. Likewise, patients with AS with higher BASDAI had a significantly lower HSUVs. This leads to the conclusion that more severe states are associated with significantly worse HSUVs, which is consistent with the previous study [5]. The findings suggested that early diagnosis and intervention in patients with AS are crucial task.
Intriguingly, patients from developing countries have higher HSUVs than those from developed countries. Previous review studies on SF-36 have also shown lower HRQoL in patients from developed countries on all dimensions [6]. Meanwhile, the cross-country analysis of the EQ-5D-3L population norms surveys for 20 countries found that the EQ Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS) correlated well with a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), although China and Thailand are outliers, with lower GDPs (along with relatively high EQ VAS scores) [48]. The definitive reason for the high HSUVs in patients from developing countries remains unclear. This discrepancy may be related to the cross-cultural applicability of the instrument, as studies have confirmed that populations in different countries have different perceptions of health [49, 50]. Finally, many factors may influence the measurement results of HSUVs (e.g., age, gender, sample source, comorbidities, and value sets), and future research is needed to explore the differences between developed and developing countries [51].
The EQ-5D has been used most commonly in the measurement of HSUVs in patients with AS, which is related to the advantages of the concise nature of the instrument and the recommendations of the national health technology assessment [52, 53]. However, we have found a low degree of correspondence between the HSUVs predicted by the different instruments, with HUI3 and AQoL having the lowest value. This phenomenon has been confirmed in previous studies and may be attributed mainly to the items of the descriptive system [54, 55]. There was only one direct measurement study using RS, while TTO is a commonly used and highly recommended measure to elicit direct HSUVs. With the clear relationship between TTO and QALY, and given its relative simplicity, stronger respondent preference, and greater consistency with the theoretical axioms of economic evaluation [56], further research could be conducted in the future on the measurement of TTO in patients with AS.
The disease-specific instrument, The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS HI), was also developed and validated [57]. Another study provided a generalized algorithm and six country-specific algorithms (UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy) to calculate HSUVs based on ASAS HI [58]. The ASAS HI measured a mean HSUVs value of 0.37 (SD 0.31) for patients with AS, a value that is significantly lower than the generic instruments, suggesting that the ASAS HI has a relatively high sensitivity and is able to accurately capture patients' symptoms and feelings [58]. However, since the number of patients with AS was not reported in the study, it was not included in the HSUVs estimation. In conducting a cost-utility analysis, It indicates that the ASAS HI would show greater gains than generic instruments in an intervention to improve AS symptoms. There is still a need for future research to explore the correlation between the ASAS HI and generic instruments, as well as the impact of different sources of HSUVs on the cost-utility analysis.
The "mapping" method has been developed allowing prediction of HSUVs based on non-preference scores in patients with AS [59]. The study linked BASDAI, BASFI, age, sex, and disease duration to utility values to derive appropriate estimates of cost-effectiveness. However, we did not include studies of "mapping" in our pooled study for the following main reasons: (1) “mapping” is a suboptimal method for eliciting HSUVs [60]; (2) there are a limited number of mapping studies and the use of different elicitation methods, which may result in greater heterogeneity. As can be seen, part of the economic evaluations has estimated incremental costs per QALYs from clinical efficacy studies[18, 19, 61], which indicates that “mapping” has important applications.
Strength and limitations
This systematic review summarized quantified HSUVs of a large number of patients with AS worldwide by rigorous and reproducible methods. However, there are limitations in our study. Firstly, our review did not include non-English-language publications. Although we tried to scan all the studies about the HSUVs of patients with AS, it may omit a small amount of relevant literature. Secondly, there was strong heterogeneity as this study used a form of pooled data (study level rather than individual information), making it difficult to conduct a more comprehensive meta-regression analysis. Finally, we evaluated the quality of the included studies and performed subgroup analyses and meta-regressions, however, missing data may still introduce bias into the synthesized results.
Conclusion
In our systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies, the estimated HSUVs for patients with AS from all available studies was pooled as 0.62 and there was a high degree of heterogeneity across studies. We found that HSUVs of patients with AS was significantly lower than the population norms. The pooled estimates of EQ-5D-3L were lower for studies published before 2010, with high disease activity, long duration of disease, and in developed countries. Our findings contribute to the understanding of factors influencing HSUVs and may serve as a reference for future patient-reported HRQoL surveys, clinical trials, and economic evaluation.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Braun, J., & Sieper, J. (2007). Ankylosing spondylitis. Lancet, 369(9570), 1379–1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60635-7
Taurog, J. D., Chhabra, A., & Colbert, R. A. (2016). Ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374(26), 2563–2574. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1406182
Wang, R., & Ward, M. M. (2018). Epidemiology of axial spondyloarthritis: An update. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 30(2), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000475
Dean, L. E., Jones, G. T., MacDonald, A. G., Downham, C., Sturrock, R. D., & Macfarlane, G. J. (2014). Global prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 53(4), 650–657. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ket387
Tu, L., Xie, Y., Liao, Z., Jiang, Y., Lv, Q., Cao, S., Wei, Q., & Gu, J. (2020). Cost of illness, quality of life, and work outcomes in active ankylosing spondylitis patients treated with adalimumab in China. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 602334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.602334
Yang, X., Fan, D., Xia, Q., Wang, M., Zhang, X., Li, X., Shengqian, X., & Pan, F. (2016). The health-related quality of life of ankylosing spondylitis patients assessed by SF-36: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 25(11), 2711–2723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1345-z
Haywood, K. L., Packham, J. C., & Jordan, K. P. (2014). Assessing fatigue in ankylosing spondylitis: The importance of frequency and severity. Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 53(3), 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ket397
Ramiro, S., Nikiphorou, E., Sepriano, A., Ortolan, A., Webers, C., Baraliakos, X., Landewé, R. B. M., Van den Bosch, F. E., Boteva, B., Bremander, A., Carron, P., Ciurea, A., van Gaalen, F. A., Géher, P., Gensler, L., Hermann, J., de Hooge, M., Husakova, M., Kiltz, U., … van der Heijde, D. (2023). ASAS-EULAR recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis: 2022 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 82(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2022-223296
Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2016). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198725923.001.0001
Drummond, M. E., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198529446.001.0001
Wolowacz, S. E., Briggs, A., Belozeroff, V., Clarke, P., Doward, L., Goeree, R., Lloyd, A., & Norman, Ri. (2016). Estimating Health-State Utility for Economic Models in Clinical Studies: An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(6), 704–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.06.001
Chiowchanwisawakit, P., Thaweeratthakul, P., Wattanamongkolsil, L., Srinonprasert, V., Koolvisoot, A., Muangchan, C., Nilganuwong, S., Arromdee, E., & Katchamart, W. (2019). 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. Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 25(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/RHU.0000000000000750
Joore, M., Brunenberg, D., Nelemans, P., Wouters, E., Kuijpers, P., Honig, A., Willems, D., de Leeuw, P., Severens, J., & Boonen, A. (2010). The Impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: Results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value in Health, 13(2), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00669.x
Boonen, A., Van Der Heijde, D., Landewe, R., Van Tubergen, A., Mielants, H., Dougados, M., & Van Der Linden, S. (2007). How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 66(6), 771–777. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2006.060384
Kydd, A. S. R., Chen, J. S., Makovey, J., Chand, V., Henderson, L., Buchbinder, R., Lassere, M., & March, L. M. (2015). Smoking did not modify the effects of anti-TNF treatment on health-related quality of life among Australian ankylosing spondylitis patients. Rheumatology, 54(2), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keu314
Gooch, K., Feeny, D., Wong, R. L., Kupper, H., Pangan, A. L., Revicki, D. A., & van der Heijde, D. (2011). Is the health utilities index 3 valid for patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Value in Health, 14(1), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.012
Emery, P., Van Keep, M., Beard, S., Graham, C., Miles, L., Jugl, S. M., Gunda, P., Halliday, A., & Marzo-Ortega, H. (2018). Cost effectiveness of secukinumab for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis in the UK. PharmacoEconomics, 36(8), 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0675-9
Svedbom, A., Dalén, J., Ivergård, M., Borse, R. H., Black, C. M., Luttropp, K., & Kachroo, S. (2020). The value of persistence in treatment with subcutaneous TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01110-w
de Kok, I. M. C. M., Korfage, I. J., van den Hout, W. B., Helmerhorst, T. J. M., Habbema, J. D. F., Essink-Bot, M.-L., & van Ballegooijen, M. (2018). Quality of life assumptions determine which cervical cancer screening strategies are cost-effective. International Journal of Cancer, 142(11), 2383–2393. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31265
Brazier, J., Ara, R., Azzabi, I., Busschbach, J., Chevrou-Séverac, H., Crawford, B., Cruz, L., Karnon, J., Lloyd, A., Suzy Paisley, A., & Pickard, S. (2019). Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 22(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.004
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., & Higgins, J. P. (2016). ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 355, i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
Troxel, A. B., Fairclough, D. L., Curran, D., & Hahn, E. A. (1998). Statistical analysis of quality of life with missing data in cancer clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 17(5–7), 653–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980315/15)17:5/7%3c653::aid-sim812%3e3.0.co;2-m
Tran, A. D., Fogarty, G., Nowak, A. K., Espinoza, D., Rowbotham, N., Stockler, M. R., & Morton, R. L. (2018). A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility estimates in melanoma. The British Journal of Dermatology, 178(2), 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16098
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Garrett, S., Jenkinson, T., Kennedy, L. G., Whitelock, H., Gaisford, P., & Calin, A. (1994). A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: The bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index. The Journal of Rheumatology, 21(12), 2286–2291.
Van Tubergen, A., Boonen, A., Landewé, R., Rutten-Van Mölken, M., Van Der Heijde, D., Hidding, A., & Van Der Linden, S. (2002). Cost effectiveness of combined spa-exercise therapy in ankylosing spondylitis: A randomized controlled trial: Cost effectiveness of spa therapy in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Care & Research, 47(5), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10658
Sabou, S., Mehdian, H., Pasku, D., Boriani, L., & Quraishi, N. A. (2018). Health-related quality of life in patients undergoing cervico-thoracic osteotomies for fixed cervico-thoracic kyphosis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. European Spine Journal, 27(7), 1586–1592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5530-3
Wailoo, A., Hernández, M., Philips, C., Brophy, S., & Siebert, S. (2015). Modeling health state utility values in ankylosing spondylitis: comparisons of direct and indirect methods. Value in Health, 18(4), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.016
Závada, J., Uher, M., Sisol, K., Forejtová, Š, Jarošová, K., Mann, H., Vencovský, J., & Pavelka, K. (2016). A tailored approach to reduce dose of anti-TNF drugs may be equally effective, but substantially less costly than standard dosing in patients with ankylosing spondylitis over 1 year: a propensity score-matched cohort study. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 75(1), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205202
Reveille, J. D., Hwang, M. C., Danve, A., Kafka, S., Peterson, S., Lo, K. H., Kim, L., Hsia, E. C., Chan, E. K. H., & Deodhar, A. (2021). The effect of intravenous golimumab on health-related quality of life and work productivity in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: results of the phase 3 GO-ALIVE trial. Clinical Rheumatology, 40(4), 1331–1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05342-7
Clemens, S., Begum, N., Harper, C., Whitty, J. A., & Scuffham, P. A. (2014). A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 23(8), 2375–2381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0676-x
Jiang, R., Janssen, M. F. B., & Pickard, A. S. (2021). US population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 30(3), 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02650-y
van den Berg, B. (2012). Sf-6d population norms. Health Economics, 21(12), 1508–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1823
Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005). Population norms and meaningful differences for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) measure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00063.x
Guertin, J. R., Feeny, D., & Tarride, J.-E. (2018). Age- and sex-specific Canadian utility norms, based on the 2013–2014 Canadian community health survey. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(6), E155–E161. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170317
Di Tanna, G. L., Urbich, M., Wirtz, H. S., Potrata, B., Heisen, M., Bennison, C., Brazier, J., & Globe, G. (2021). Health state utilities of patients with heart failure: A systematic literature review. PharmacoEconomics, 39(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00984-6
Haridoss, M., Bagepally, B. S., & Natarajan, M. (2021). Health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of EuroQoL (EQ-5D) utility scores from Asia. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 24(3), 314–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.14066
Walsh, J. A., Ogdie, A., Michaud, K., Peterson, S., Holdsworth, E. A., Karyekar, C. S., Booth, N., Middleton-Dalby, C., Chakravarty, S. D., Dennis, N., & Gossec, L. (2023). Impact of key manifestations of psoriatic arthritis on patient quality of life, functional status, and work productivity: Findings from a real-world study in the United States and Europe. Joint Bone Spine, 90(3), 105534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2023.105534
Dougados, M., & Baeten, D. (2011). Spondyloarthritis. Lancet (London, England), 377(9783), 2127–2137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60071-8
Kiltz, U., & van der Heijde, D. (2009). Health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 27(4 Suppl 55), S108-111.
Joundi, R. A., Adekanye, J., Leung, A. A., Ronksley, P., Smith, E. E., Rebchuk, A. D., & Bresee, L. C. (2022). Health state utility values in people with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Heart Association, 11(13), e024296. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.024296
Balázs, P. G., Erdősi, D., Zemplényi, A., & Brodszky, V. (2023). Time trade-off health state utility values for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 32(4), 923–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03253-5
Danve, A., & Deodhar, A. (2022). Treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: An update. Nature Reviews. Rheumatology, 18(4), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-022-00761-z
Zochling, J. (2011). Measures of symptoms and disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Scale (ASQoL), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Score (BAS-G), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), Dougados Functional Index (DFI), and Health Assessment Questionnaire for the Spondylarthropathies (HAQ-S). Arthritis Care & Research, 63(Suppl 11), S47-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20575
Janssen, M. F., Szende, A., Cabases, J., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Vilagut, G., & König, H. H. (2019). Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: A cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0955-5
Zhang, W., & Ta, V. M. (2009). Social connections, immigration-related factors, and self-rated physical and mental health among Asian Americans. Social Science & Medicine, 68(12), 2104–2112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.04.012
Mao, Z., Ahmed, S., Graham, C., Kind, P., Sun, Y. N., & Yu, C. H. (2021). Similarities and differences in health-related quality-of-life concepts between the east and the west: A qualitative analysis of the content of health-related quality-of-life measures. Value in Health Regional Issues, 24, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2020.11.007
Zhou, T., Guan, H., Yao, J., Xiong, X., & Ma, A. (2018). The quality of life in Chinese population with chronic non-communicable diseases according to EQ-5D-3L: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27(11), 2799–2814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1928-y
Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., Busschbach, J., & Boye, K. S. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European journal of health economics: HEPAC: health economics in prevention and care, 21(8), 1245–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8
Wang, A., Rand, K., Yang, Z., Brooks, R., & Busschbach, J. (2022). The remarkably frequent use of EQ-5D in non-economic research. The European journal of health economics: HEPAC: Health economics in prevention and care, 23(6), 1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01411-z
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and “micro-utility” effects. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 24(8), 2045–2053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0926-6
Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2014). Multiattribute utility instruments and their use. In A. J. Culyer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health economics (pp. 341–357). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375678-7.00505-8
Lipman, S. A., Brouwer, W. B. F., & Attema, A. E. (2020). What is it going to be, TTO or SG? A direct test of the validity of health state valuation. Health Economics, 29(11), 1475–1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4131
Kiltz, U., van der Heijde, D., Boonen, A., & Braun, J. (2014). The ASAS health index (ASAS HI) - a new tool to assess the health status of patients with spondyloarthritis. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 32(5 Suppl 85), S-105-108.
Essers, I., Hiligsmann, M., Kiltz, U., Bansback, N., Braun, J., van der Heijde, D., & Boonen, A. (2019). Development of one general and six country-specific algorithms to assess societal health utilities based on ASAS HI. RMD Open, 5(1), e000872. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000872
Wailoo, A., Hernández, M., Philips, C., Brophy, S., & Siebert, S. (2015). Modeling health state utility values in ankylosing spondylitis: comparisons of direct and indirect methods. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 18(4), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.016
Ara, R., Rowen, D., & Mukuria, C. (2017). The use of mapping to estimate health state utility values. PharmacoEconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0548-7
Kearns, B., Ara, R., Wailoo, A., Manca, A., Alava, M. H., Abrams, K., & Campbell, M. (2013). Good practice guidelines for the use of statistical regression models in economic evaluations. PharmacoEconomics, 31(8), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0069-y
Haywood, K. L. (2002). Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology, 41(12), 1380–1387. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/41.12.1380
Heiberg, M. S., Nordvåg, B. Y., Mikkelsen, K., Rødevand, E., Kaufmann, C., Mowinckel, P., & Kvien, T. K. (2005). The comparative effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-blocking agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and patients with ankylosing spondylitis: A six-month, longitudinal, observational, multicenter study. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 52(8), 2506–2512. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21209
Verstappen, S. M. M., Jacobs, J. W. G., Van Der Heijde, D. M., Van Der Linden, S., Verhoef, C. M., Bijlsma, J. W. J., & Boonen, A. (2007). Utility and direct costs: Ankylosing spondylitis compared with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 66(6), 727–731. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2006.061283
Choi, C. B., Kim, T. J., Park, H. J., Uhm, W. S., Jun, J. B., Bae, S. C., Yoo, D. H., & Kim, T. H. (2008). Safety and clinical responses in ankylosing spondylitis after three months of etanercept therapy. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 23(5), 852. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2008.23.5.852
Kobelt, G., Sobocki, P., Mulero, J., Gratacos, J., Pocovi, A., & Collantes-Estevez, E. (2008). The burden of ankylosing spondylitis in Spain. Value in Health, 11(3), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00252.x
Ariza-Ariza, R., Hernández-Cruz, B., López-Antequera, G., & Navarro-Sarabia, F. (2009). Variables related to utility in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clinical Rheumatology, 28(2), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-008-1019-5
Brox, J. I., Helle, A., Sørensen, R., Gunderson, R., Riise, R., & Reikerås, O. (2009). Functional outcome after lumbar closing wedge osteotomy in ankylosing spondylitis. International Orthopaedics, 33(4), 1049–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0590-3
Gordeev, V. S., Maksymowych, W. P., Evers, S. M. A. A., Ament, A., Schachna, L., & Boonen, A. (2010). Role of contextual factors in health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 69(1), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.100164
Kvamme, M. K., Kristiansen, I. S., Lie, E., & Kvien, T. K. (2010). Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. The Journal of Rheumatology, 37(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.090449
Reilly, M. C., Gooch, K. L., Wong, R. L., Kupper, H., & van der Heijde, D. (2010). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology, 49(4), 812–819. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kep457
Kimel, M., Revicki, D., Rao, S., Fryback, D., Feeny, D., Harnam, N., Thompson, C., & Cifaldi, M. (2011). Norms-based assessment of patient-reported outcomes associated with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 29(4), 624–632.
Wade, A. G., Crawford, G. M., Pumford, N., Koscielny, V., Maycock, S., & McConnachie, A. (2011). Baseline characteristics and patient reported outcome data of patients prescribed etanercept: Web-based and telephone evaluation. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-91
Haglund, E., Bergman, S., Petersson, I. F., Jacobsson, L. T. H., Strömbeck, B., & Bremander, A. (2012). Differences in physical activity patterns in patients with spondylarthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 64(12), 1886–1894. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21780
Pimentel-Santos, F. M., Pinto, T., Santos, H., Barcelos, A., Cunha, I., Branco, J. C., & Ferreira, P. L. (2012). Portuguese version of the bath indexes for ankylosing spondylitis patients: A cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Clinical Rheumatology, 31(2), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-011-1864-5
Healey, E. L., Haywood, K. L., Jordan, K. P., Garratt, A. M., & Packham, J. C. (2013). Patients with well-established ankylosing spondylitis show limited deterioration in a ten-year prospective cohort study. Clinical Rheumatology, 32(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-012-2092-3
Haglund, E., Bremander, A., Bergman, S., Jacobsson, L. T. H., & Petersson, I. F. (2013). Work productivity in a population-based cohort of patients with spondyloarthritis. Rheumatology, 52(9), 1708–1714. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ket217
Meesters, J. J. L., Petersson, I. F., Bergman, S., Haglund, E., Jacobsson, L. T. H., & Bremander, A. (2014). Sociodemographic and disease-related factors are associated with patient-reported anxiety and depression in spondyloarthritis patients in the Swedish SpAScania cohort. Clinical Rheumatology, 33(11), 1649–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-014-2699-7
Oliveira Junior, H. A. D., Almeida, A. M., Acurcio, F. A., Santos, J. B. D., Kakehasi, A. M., Alvares, J., Gomes e Souza Dabés, C., & Cherchiglia, M. L. (2015). Profile of patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing treatment with anti-TNF agents in the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS), Belo Horizonte - MG. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 51(3), 709–719. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-82502015000300023
Wallman, J. K., Kapetanovic, M. C., Petersson, I. F., Geborek, P., & Kristensen, L. E. (2015). Comparison of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients—baseline characteristics, treatment adherence, and development of clinical variables during three years of anti-TNF therapy in clinical practice. Arthritis Research & Therapy, 17(1), 378. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-015-0897-6
Kawalec, P., & Malinowski, K. (2016). Disease activity, quality of life and indirect costs of reduced productivity at work, generated by polish patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology, 53(6), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2015.57634
Damjanov, N., Shehhi, W. A., Huang, F., Kotak, S., Burgos-Vargas, R., Shirazy, K., Bananis, E., Szumski, A., Llamado, L. J. Q., & Mahgoub, E. (2016). Assessment of clinical efficacy and safety in a randomized double-blind study of etanercept and sulfasalazine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis from Eastern/Central Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Rheumatology International, 36(5), 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3452-0
Mlcoch, T., Sedova, L., Stolfa, J., Urbanova, M., Suchy, D., Smrzova, A., Jircikova, J., Pavelka, K., & Dolezal, T. (2017). Mapping the relationship between clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 17(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2016.1200468
Chen, H. H., Chen, D. Y., Chen, Y. M., & Lai, K. L. (2017). Health-related quality of life and utility: Comparison of ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus patients in Taiwan. Clinical Rheumatology, 36(1), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3471-y
Bredin, S., Fabre-Aubrespy, M., Blondel, B., Falguières, J., Schuller, S., Walter, A., Fuentes, S., Tropiano, P., Steib, J. P., & Charles, Y. P. (2017). Percutaneous surgery for thoraco-lumbar fractures in ankylosing spondylitis: Study of 31 patients. Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research: OTSR, 103(8), 1235–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.023
Mease, P. J., Heijde, D. V. D., Karki, C., Palmer, J. B., Liu, M., Pandurengan, R., Park, Y., & Greenberg, J. D. (2018). Characterization of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the US -based corrona registry. Arthritis Care & Research, 70(11), 1661–1670. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23534
Salaffi, F., Di Carlo, M., Carotti, M., Farah, S., Ciapetti, A., & Gutierrez, M. (2019). The impact of different rheumatic diseases on health-related quality of life: a comparison with a selected sample of healthy individuals using SF-36 questionnaire, EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values. Acta Bio-Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 89(4), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v89i4.7298
Min, H. K., Lee, J., Ju, J. H., Park, S. H., & Kwok, S. K. (2019). Predictors of assessment of spondyloarthritis international society (ASAS) health index in axial spondyloarthritis and comparison of ASAS health index between ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis: Data from the catholic axial spondyloarthritis cohort (CASCO). Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(4), 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8040467
de Oliveira, Alves, Junior, H., Pereira da Veiga, T., Acurcio, F. D. A., Almeida, A. M., Ribeiro Dos Santos, J. B., da Silva, M. R. R., Kakehasi, A. M., & Cherchiglia, M. L. (2020). Impact of biologic DMARDs on quality of life: 12-month results of a rheumatic diseases cohort using the Brazilian EQ-5D tariff. Hospital Practice, 48(4), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2020.1785212
Lee, S., Park, Y., Choe, J., Shin, K., Kwon, S., Cha, J., Kim, Y. J., Lee, J., & Kim, T. H. (2020). Gastrointestinal risk factors and patient-reported outcomes of ankylosing spondylitis in Korea. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 23(3), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.13758
Park, D., & Kwon, Y. (2020). Factors affecting quality of life and satisfaction in patients with arthritis after change to a fixed-dose naproxen/esomeprazole combination drug. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 12(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2020.12.1.86
Strand, V., Deodhar, A., Alten, R., Sullivan, E., Blackburn, S., Tian, H., Gandhi, K. K., Jugl, S. M., & Conaghan, P. G. (2021). Pain and fatigue in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: Multinational real-world findings. JCR:Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 27(8), e446–e455. https://doi.org/10.1097/RHU.0000000000001544
Van Der Zee-Neuen, A., Strobl, V., Dobias, H., Fuchs, J., Untner, J., Foisner, W., Knapp, M., Edtinger, S., Offenbächer, M., Ritter, M., Hölzl, B., & Gaisberger, M. (2022). Sustained improvements in EQ-5D utility scores and self-rated health status in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after spa treatment including low-dose radon—an analysis of prospective radon indication registry data. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23(1), 743. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05691-1
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank The Rheumatology department Qilu hospital of Shandong University for clinical consultation during the search strategy and article writing stages.
Funding
This work supported by the National Science Foundation of China [Grant number: 72374127].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KTZ and JCF: wrote the first draft of the manuscript and screened the identified title and abstract. Disagreements between reviewers were solved through a consensus, together with SPL and GC. LD and ZS extracted data from selected articles. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results, as well as read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
All other authors report no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Feng, J., Zhang, K., Dou, L. et al. Health state utility values in patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Qual Life Res 33, 2321–2334 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03670-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03670-8