The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the 585 patients sampled are described in Table 1. There were more females (55.7%) than male (44.3%) patients. The mean (SD) age of the sample was 17.2(5.4) years, with an age range between 3 to 60 years old. Majority of the samples were of the Malay ethnicity. Since young children were also recruited for this study, the source of the HRQoL may have been self-reported (56.8%) or proxy-reported (43.2%). In both the self-reported and proxy reported groups, majority of the patients had received a primary or secondary education with 71.7% and 62.5% respectively. The mean (SD) age of initiating blood transfusion was 5.4 (7.9) years old while the mean (SD) number of transfusion years was 11.3 (8.9). A total of 56.6% of patients had no iron overload complications while the remaining 43.4% of patients reported the presence of at least one complication. Out of those who reported complications, 48.8% reported complications related to the liver. Majority of the patients were on monotherapy treatment (66.0%). The oral route of administration (56.6%) was the most common route of administration. Only 13.0% of the sampled population had any history of a serious adverse event with iron chelating therapy.
Table 1: Patients sociodemographic and clinical characteristics
Characteristics
|
Total (N = 585)
|
Age in years, mean (SD)
|
17.2 (5.4)
|
Age at first transfusion in years, mean (SD)
|
5.4 (7.9)
|
Number of years receiving blood transfusion, mean (SD)
|
11.3 (8.9)
|
Source of survey (%)
|
Self-reported
|
332 (56.8)
|
Proxy-reported
|
253 (43.2)
|
Gender (%)
|
Male
|
259 (44.3)
|
Female
|
326 (55.7)
|
Ethnicity (%)
|
Malay
|
403 (68.9)
|
Chinese
|
94 (16.1)
|
Kadazan-Dusun
|
58 (9.9)
|
Others
|
30 (5.1)
|
Education Level of Proxy’s who completed Proxy-Report, n= 251 (%)
|
No Formal Education
|
10 (4.0)
|
Primary or Secondary Education
|
180 (71.7)
|
Tertiary Education
|
61 (24.3)
|
Education Level of Patients who completed Self-Report, n= 331 (%)
|
No Formal Education
|
3 (0.9)
|
Primary or Secondary Education
|
207 (62.5)
|
Tertiary Education
|
121 (36.6)
|
Presence of Iron Overload (IOL) Complication (%)
|
No Complication
|
331 (56.6)
|
One Complication
|
164 (28.0)
|
Two Complications
|
66 (11.3)
|
Three or more Complications
|
24 (4.1)
|
|
|
Cardiac Disease
|
39 (15.3*)
|
Diabetes
|
20 (7.9*)
|
Hypothyroid
|
25 (9.8*)
|
Hypogonadism
|
90 (35.4*)
|
Hypoparathyroidism
|
52 (20.5*)
|
Liver Disease
|
124 (48.8*)
|
Iron Chelation Therapy (%)
|
Desferrioxamine (Subcutaneous (SC) Drug)
|
68 (11.6)
|
Deferasirox (Oral (PO) Drug)
|
245 (41.9)
|
Deferiprone (Oral (PO) Drug)
|
73 (12.5)
|
Desferrioxamine + Deferiprone (SC + PO Drug)
|
154 (26.3)
|
Desferrioxamine + Deferasirox (SC + PO Drug)
|
32 (5.8)
|
Deferiprone + Deferasirox (Both Oral Drugs)
|
13 (2.2)
|
Number of Iron Chelating Agents (%)
|
Monotherapy
|
386 (66.0)
|
Dual Therapy
|
199 (34.0)
|
Route of Iron Chelating Administration (%)
|
Subcutaneous
|
68 (11.6)
|
Oral
|
331 (56.6)
|
Subcutaneous + Oral
|
186 (31.8)
|
History of Serious Adverse Event with Iron Chelation Therapy (%)
|
Yes
|
76 (13.0)
|
No
|
509 (87.0)
|
N, number; SD, standard deviation; IOL, Iron Overload Complication; SC, Subcutaneous; PO, Oral
*Percentage calculated based on the total number of people who has complication
Out of the 243 possible health profiles with the EQ-5D-3L, 32 health profiles were reported, with 67.35% of patients reporting a health state of 11111, followed by 10.09% reporting a health state of 11121 (Additional File Table 1). Figure 1 summarizes the distribution of health profiles for the sampled population. The pain/discomfort (20.2%) and the anxiety/depression (13.5%) domain had a higher percentage of reported problems compared to the other domains. Table 2 summarizes the distribution of EQ-5D-3L responses based on the population and source of survey. Based on the paediatric and adult population, the difference in score was significant on the mobility and self-care domains, with the pediatric population reporting more problems on the self-care domain while the adult population reported more problems on the mobility domain. Based on the source of the survey, there was a significant difference in the mobility, self-care and anxiety/depression domain. Respondents who self-reported reported more problems on the mobility and anxiety/depression domain whereas proxy-reported respondents reported more problems on the self-care domain.
Table 2: Distribution of EQ-5D-3L responses by population and source of survey
Dimension
|
By population category
|
By source of survey
|
Pediatric (n=364)
|
Adult
(n=221)
|
p-value
|
Self-report (n=332)
|
Proxy-report (n=253)
|
p-value
|
Mobility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
351 (96.4)
|
201 (91.0)
|
|
306 (92.2)
|
246 (97.2)
|
|
Level 2
|
11 (3.0)
|
20 (9.1)
|
|
25 (7.5)
|
6 (2.4)
|
|
Level 3
|
2 (0.6)
|
0 (0)
|
|
1 (0.3)
|
1 (0.4)
|
|
Any problem in mobility (%)
|
13 (3.6)
|
20 (9.1)
|
0.005*
|
26 (7.8)
|
7 (2.8)
|
0.009*
|
Self-care
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
344 (94.5)
|
217 (98.2)
|
|
325 (97.9)
|
236 (93.3)
|
|
Level 2
|
14 (3.9)
|
4 (1.8)
|
|
7 (2.1)
|
11 (4.4)
|
|
Level 3
|
6 (1.7)
|
0 (0)
|
|
0 (0)
|
6 (2.4)
|
|
Any problem in self-care (%)
|
20 (5.5)
|
4 (1.8)
|
0.029*
|
7 (2.1)
|
17 (6.7)
|
0.005*
|
Usual Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
338 (92.9)
|
200 (90.5)
|
|
306 (92.2)
|
232 (91.7)
|
|
Level 2
|
20 (5.5)
|
18 (8.1)
|
|
23 (6.9)
|
15 (5.9)
|
|
Level 3
|
6 (1.7)
|
3 (1.4)
|
|
3 (0.9)
|
6 (2.4)
|
|
Any problem in usual activity (%)
|
26 (7.1)
|
21 (9.5)
|
0.309
|
26 (7.8)
|
21 (8.3)
|
0.836
|
Pain/Discomfort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
297 (81.6)
|
170 (76.9)
|
|
260 (78.3)
|
207 (81.8)
|
|
Level 2
|
67 (18.4)
|
51 (23.1)
|
|
72 (21.7)
|
46 (18.2)
|
|
Level 3
|
0 (0)
|
0 (0)
|
|
0 (0)
|
0 (0)
|
|
Any problem in pain/discomfort (%)
|
67 (18.4)
|
51 (23.1)
|
0.172
|
72 (21.7)
|
46 (18.2)
|
0.295
|
Anxiety/Depression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
321 (88.2)
|
185 (83.7)
|
|
278 (83.7)
|
228 (90.1)
|
|
Level 2
|
41 (11.3)
|
36 (16.3)
|
|
53 (16.0)
|
24 (9.5)
|
|
Level 3
|
2 (0.6)
|
0 (0)
|
|
1 (0.3)
|
1 (0.4)
|
|
Any problem in anxiety/depression (%)
|
43 (11.8)
|
36 (16.3)
|
0.125
|
54 (16.3)
|
25 (9.9)
|
0.025*
|
Values of scores are presented as n(%), number(percentage); p-value using Chi-square test;* indicates significance at p-value < 0.05
A summary of the domain responses by sociodemographic and clinical factors based on aggregates of “no problem reported” and “problem reported” are shown in Additional Files Table 2. Using a Chi-square test, the aggregated domain responses were tested for statistical significance. Factors taken into consideration were gender, the presence of iron overload complications, the route and number of iron chelating (ICT) agents and the history of serious adverse events (SAE) with ICT use. On the mobility domain, all 5 factors were statistically significant whereas none of these factors were significant in the self-care domain. On the usual activity domain, the presence of iron overload complications, route, the number of iron chelating agents used and history of SAE were significant. On the pain/discomfort domain, only the presence of iron overload complications was significant. On the anxiety/depression domain, gender, presence of iron overload complications and the number of iron chelating agents used was significant.
Based on the number of iron overload complications, Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of EQ-5D-3L utility values. Populations without iron overload complications tend to have a higher index score compared to populations with an IOL complication. The range of utility scores in the sample was limited between 0.4454 to 1.000.
The unadjusted mean (SD) EQ-5D-3L utility value for the entire sample was 0.893 (0.167) while the mean (SD) EQ VAS score was 81.22 (16.92), as summarized in Table 3. Based on the EQ-5D-3L utility values, statistical significance from Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test found the variables of gender (effect size = 0.202), the presence of iron overload (effect size = 0.257), route of iron chelating therapy (effect size = 0.215 for oral and 0.06 for combination therapy compared to subcutaneous) and the number of iron chelating agents used (effect size = 0.274) to be statistically significant. However, the effect sizes of these variables were only small, with a coefficient that ranged less than 0.5, with the number of chelating agents used having the largest effect size.
Based on the EQ VAS, the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test found the source of survey (effect size = 0.439), category of child or adult (effect size = 0.611), the presence of iron overload (effect size = 0.288), route of iron chelating therapy (effect size = 0.347 for oral and 0.047 for combination therapy compared to subcutaneous) and the number of iron chelating agents used (effect size = 0.299) to be statistically significant. The effect size of the child or adult category was the largest with a value of 0.611.
Table 3: Summary of EQ-5D-3L mean utility values (unadjusted) & EQ VAS
Factors
|
EQ-5D-3L Utility Values
|
EQ VAS
|
Mean (SD)
|
Median (IQR)
|
p-value¶
|
Effect size
|
Mean (SD)
|
Median (IQR)
|
p-value¶
|
Effect size
|
Total Sample
|
0.893(0.167)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
-
|
-
|
81.22 (16.92)
|
85.00 (25.00)
|
-
|
-
|
Source of survey
|
Self-reported
|
0.887 (0.165)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
0.219
|
0.080
|
78.08 (18.19)
|
80.00 (20.00)
|
<0.001*
|
0.439
|
Proxy-reported
|
0.900 (0.169)
|
1.000 (0.255)
|
85.36 (14.10)
|
90.00 (15.00)
|
Gender
|
Male
|
0.911 (0.157)
|
1.000 (0.244)
|
0.011*
|
0.202
|
82.29 (15.53)
|
85.00 (20.00)
|
0.450
|
0.114
|
Female
|
0.878 (0.173)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
80.37 (17.93)
|
85.00 (25.00)
|
Category
|
Child (≤18 years old)
|
0.898 (0.163)
|
1.000 (0.255)
|
0.079
|
0.371
|
84.97 (15.16)
|
90.00 (15.00)
|
<0.001*
|
0.611
|
Adult
|
0.884 (0.172)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
75.04 (17.86)
|
80.00 (25.00)
|
Presence of Iron Overload Complication
|
Absent
|
0.911 (0.153)
|
1.000 (0.244)
|
0.002*
|
0.257
|
83.31 (16.61)
|
85.00 (15.00)
|
<0.001*
|
0.288
|
Present
|
0.869 (0.180)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
78.49 (16.70)
|
80.00 (20.00)
|
Route of iron chelating therapy
|
Subcutaneous (SC) Only
|
0.877 (0.187)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
0.016¥*
|
Reference Group
|
78.45 (15.68)
|
80.00 (20.00)
|
<0.001¥*
|
Reference Group
|
Oral (PO) Only
|
0.911 (0.151)
|
1.000 (0.244)
|
0.215
|
83.82 (15.41)
|
90.00 (15.00)
|
0.347
|
SC + PO
|
0.866 (0.181)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
0.060
|
77.60 (19.06)
|
80.00 (20.00)
|
0.047
|
Number of iron chelating agents
|
Monotherapy
|
0.908 (0.153)
|
1.000 (0.255)
|
0.005*
|
0.274
|
82.95 (15.52)
|
87.50 (20.00)
|
<0.001*
|
0.299
|
Dual Therapy
|
0.863 (0.186)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
77.90 (18.95)
|
80.00 (20.00)
|
History of Serious Adverse Event with iron chelating therapy
|
Yes
|
0.881 (0.181)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
0.585
|
0.078
|
78.16 (17.52)
|
85.00 (20.00)
|
0.068
|
0.208
|
No
|
0.894 (0.164)
|
1.000 (0.269)
|
81.67 (16.80)
|
80.00 (20.00)
|
Values of scores are presented as Mean (SD; Standard Deviation); Median (IQR; Interquartile range) N, number; SC, subcutaneous; PO, oral; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; p-value¶, using Mann Whitney U Test; p-value¥, using Kruskal Wallis Test;* indicates significance at p-value < 0.05, Effect Size (Cohen’s d Interpreted as d = 0.2-0.5 (Small), d = 0.5-0.8 (Moderate) and d >0.8 (Large)
Table 4 presents the HSUVs for the different types of iron chelating agents and specific iron overload complications which were generated using a two-part model, controlling for gender and the presence of iron overload complications in the model. The analysis was conducted using the full sample (n=585) and a restricted sample (n=429). In the restricted sample, patients who reported perfect health but had iron overload complications were excluded from the analysis. We hypothesized that patients who had iron overload complications would not be able to achieve perfect health and hence wanted to examine what the HSUVs would be without that cohort. Using the full sample, patients who had diabetes had the lowest utility value of 0.815 compared to other iron overload complications. However, when the restricted sample was used, patients with hypothyroid had the lowest utility value of 0.838. In both sample analysis, patients who were on oral monotherapy had a higher utility value compared to other routes of administration. Based on the full sample, the health state utility values using a subcutaneous iron chelator (0.893) resulted in a utility decrement of 2.7% compared to when an oral iron chelator (0.918) is used, whereas patients in the restricted sample had a utility decrement of 17.9%. In addition to the route of administration, the number of iron chelators used can affect the HRQoL of patients, whereby patients who had more than one iron chelator had lower utility values compared to those who had monotherapy in both the samples.
Table 4: Health state utility values derived from the two-part model
Health State
|
Full Sample (n=585)
|
Restricted Sample (n=429)
|
Utility Value
|
95% CI
|
Utility Value
|
95% CI
|
TDT with Non-specific Iron Overload Complication
|
0.852
|
0.811
|
0.893
|
0.905
|
0.880
|
0.929
|
TDT with Cardiac Complication
|
0.820
|
0.742
|
0.897
|
0.846
|
0.805
|
0.887
|
TDT with Diabetes
|
0.815
|
0.711
|
0.919
|
0.839
|
0.788
|
0.890
|
TDT with Hypothyroid
|
0.853
|
0.761
|
0.945
|
0.838
|
0.787
|
0.889
|
TDT with Hypogonadism
|
0.841
|
0.785
|
0.896
|
0.860
|
0.827
|
0.893
|
TDT with Hypoparathyroidism
|
0.894
|
0.832
|
0.955
|
0.856
|
0.815
|
0.897
|
TDT with Liver iron overload
|
0.826
|
0.778
|
0.875
|
0.929
|
0.907
|
0.951
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TDT with Desferrioxamine (DFO)
|
0.893
|
0.880
|
0.906
|
0.779
|
0.707
|
0.852
|
TDT with Deferasirox (DFX)
|
0.915
|
0.856
|
0.974
|
0.854
|
0.837
|
0.870
|
TDT with Deferiprone (DFP)
|
0.940
|
0.875
|
1.005
|
0.778
|
0.698
|
0.859
|
TDT with DFO + DFP
|
0.903
|
0.841
|
0.964
|
0.749
|
0.691
|
0.808
|
TDT with DFO + DFX
|
0.862
|
0.229
|
0.953
|
0.758
|
0.662
|
0.854
|
TDT with DFX + DFP
|
0.814
|
0.653
|
0.975
|
0.754
|
0.591
|
0.917
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TDT on subcutaneous (SC) therapy
|
0.893
|
0.879
|
0.906
|
0.779
|
0.706
|
0.852
|
TDT on oral (PO) therapy
|
0.918
|
0.860
|
0.976
|
0.949
|
0.902
|
0.997
|
TDT on SC + PO therapy
|
0.895
|
0.834
|
0.957
|
0.890
|
0.837
|
0.942
|
CI, Confidence Interval; TDT, Transfusion-dependent Thalassemia; DFO, Desferrioxamine; DFX, Deferasirox; DFP, Deferiprone; SC, subcutaneous; PO, oral
The marginal effects of the various sociodemographic and clinical factors on the disutility score were analysed using STATA’s two-part model margins command on the full sample (Additional Files Table 3). Gender, length of transfusion, presence of iron overload complications and number of iron chelating agents used were found to be significant predictors for the disutility score. When comparing the EQ-5D-3L utility values of patients with complications to patients without complications in the two-part model, the HRQoL declining effect becomes significant when there are at least two coexisting complications. Patients who used dual iron chelating agents had lower utility scores by 0.15 points when compared to those who were on monotherapy.