IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0350019.html

Choice and impact of EQ-5D-5L value set in cost-utility analyses alongside multinational trials: Insights from PREFERABLE-EFFECT and CONVINCE

Author

Listed:
  • Aniek E M Schouten
  • Geert W J Frederix
  • Martijn M Stuiver
  • Felix Fischer
  • Anouk E Hiensch
  • Krister Cromm
  • Bernard Canaud
  • Giovanni F M Strippoli
  • Anne M May
  • Miriam P van der Meulen
  • On behalf of the PREFERABLE-EFFECT Scientific Committee, and the CONVINCE Scientific Committee

Abstract

Objectives: Multinational clinical trials are increasingly common in the European Economic Area, yet no guideline exists on which EQ-5D value set(s) should be used for health economic evaluations alongside multinational trials. Either a single value set or country-specific value sets can be applied, and previous studies have shown that the choice of value set can impact the estimated utility scores. For the EQ-5D-5L, the impact on European pooled cost-utility analyses has not been established. This study evaluates the impact of EQ-5D-5L value sets on cost-utility outcomes in two multinational trials. Methods: Data from two multinational randomized controlled trials were used: (i) supervised exercise compared to usual care for patients with metastatic breast cancer (PREFERABLE-EFFECT), (ii) hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis for patients with kidney failure (CONVINCE). EQ-5D-5L was assessed at baseline and during follow-up. Utility scores and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with the country-specific value set for each participant, and with the value set of each included country. The probability of cost-effectiveness was estimated using bootstrapping. Results: Mean assigned utility scores per year alive ranged between 0.762 and 0.889 for PREFERABLE-EFFECT, and 0.673 and 0.806 for CONVINCE. The difference in utility scores is largest when participants report low quality of life. Estimated QALY gains ranged between 0.013 and 0.020 for PREFERABLE-EFFECT and 0.045 and 0.058 for CONVINCE. The maximum difference in probability of cost-effectiveness between the value sets was Δ8.3% at €80,000/QALY in PREFERABLE-EFFECT, and Δ11.1% at €40,000/QALY for CONVINCE. Conclusions: Choice of value set led to substantial variation in absolute utility scores and QALYs, which may influence cost-utility outcomes. This impact could be greater when an intervention prevents or aids recovery of health conditions associated with low quality of life, or results in large mortality differences. Scenario analyses using multiple value sets should be conducted for multinational trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Aniek E M Schouten & Geert W J Frederix & Martijn M Stuiver & Felix Fischer & Anouk E Hiensch & Krister Cromm & Bernard Canaud & Giovanni F M Strippoli & Anne M May & Miriam P van der Meulen & On beha, 2026. "Choice and impact of EQ-5D-5L value set in cost-utility analyses alongside multinational trials: Insights from PREFERABLE-EFFECT and CONVINCE," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(6), pages 1-1, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350019
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350019
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350019&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0350019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350019. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.