Pneumologie 2018; 72(S 01): S5
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1619127
Sektion 3 – Arbeitsmedizin, Epidemiologie, Umwelt- und Sozialmedizin
Freie Vorträge – Titel: Aspekte der Arbeitsmedizin – Gesundheitsrisiken
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Does qualtity of life differ in ILD entities – a comparison using EQ-5D-5L and K-BILD

B Szentes
1   Helmholtz Zentrum München – Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH)
,
M Kreuter
2   Thoraxklinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
,
T Bahmer
3   Lungenclinic Grosshansdorf
,
M Claussen
3   Lungenclinic Grosshansdorf
,
J Wälscher
2   Thoraxklinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
,
L Schwarzkopf
1   Helmholtz Zentrum München – Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
 
 

    Background:

    Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are associated with a high burden of disease, but it remains unclear if there are entity-specific differences in quality of life (QoL). Our aim was to assess QoL and to compare assessment by the generic EQ-5D-5L with the disease specific King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire (K-BILD) across different ILD entities.

    Methods:

    Our data refer to 229 patients of the ongoing HILDA observational study. Based on prevalence in the study sample, interstitial idiopathic pneumonias (IIPs), sarcoidosis (SAR) and other ILDs were defined as entities of interest. In an univariate analysis we compared entity-specific mean scores (+ Standard deviation) of K-BILD and EQ-5D (VAS and experience based values (ebvs)) via ANOVA. Within a multivariate analysis, Generalized Linear Models were performed to assess entity-specific QoL-differences adjusted for age, sex, education, recruitment center, smoking status, FVC and DLCO % predicted, and frequency of comorbidities.

    Results:

    Univariate QoL comparisons between IIPs (n = 80 (34.9%)), SAR (51 (22.3%)) and Others (98 (42.8%)) revealed no significant differences in QoL(EQ-5D ebvs 0.68 (0.167) 0.66 (0.18) 0.64 (0.17) p = 0.2951; VAS 63.2 (19.56) 62.63 (18.14) 59.27 (19.28) p = 0.347; K-BILD 54.11 (10.81) 54.58 (12.79) 52.57 (11.74) p = 0.5315).

    In the multivariate model IIP patients showed significantly better? QoL than those with SAR for EQ-5D ebvs (0.74 vs. 0.65 p = 0.0186) VAS (68.7 vs. 59.5 p = 0.0289; and K-BILD (59.2 vs. 54.2 p = 0.0473). Compared to other ILDs QoL in IIP was better regarding EQ-5D ebvs (0.74 vs. 0.66; p = 0.0014) and VAS (68.7 vs. 59.7 p = 0.002) but not if assessed by K-BILD (59.2 vs. 55.8 p = 0.0575). Irrespective of entity, higher comorbidity burden had a negative impact on QoL and a higher FVC % predicted value a positive impact.

    Discussion:

    Our analysis revealed better generic QoL in IIPs compared to other ILDs which by trend also holds for disease- specific QoL. Further investigations are needed to determine the reasons for this phenomenon. Particularly a grouping of ILDs with similar clinical characteristics might help to understand the associations between QoL and particulars of ILD more comprehensively.


    #