IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i1d10.1007_s40273-018-0701-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Moving from EQ-5D-3L to -5L in NICE Technology Appraisals

Author

Listed:
  • Becky Pennington

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Monica Hernandez-Alava

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Stephen Pudney

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Allan Wailoo

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Background The EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)’s preferred measure of health-related quality of life (QoL) in adults. The three-level (3L) value set is currently recommended for use, but the five-level (5L) set is increasingly being used in practice. Objective We aimed to explore the impact of moving from 3L to 5L in NICE appraisals. Methods We adapted our existing mapping for use with health state utility values derived from a population where the original distribution of utilities was unknown. We used this mapping to estimate 5L utilities for 21 comparisons of interventions from models used in NICE technology appraisal decision making, covering a range of disease areas. Results All utilities increased using 5L, and the differences between highest and lowest utilities decreased. In ten oncology comparisons, using 5L generally increased the incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the benefit from improving survival increased. In four non-oncology comparisons where the intervention improved QoL only, the incremental QALYs decreased as the benefit of improving QoL was reduced. In seven non-oncology comparisons where interventions improved survival and QoL, there was a trade-off between increasing the benefit from survival and decreasing the benefit from improving QoL. Conclusion 3L and 5L lead to substantially different estimates of incremental QALYs and cost effectiveness. The direction and magnitude of the change is not consistent across case studies. Using 5L instead of 3L may lead to different reimbursement decisions. NICE will face inconsistencies in decision making if it uses 3L and 5L concurrently.

Suggested Citation

  • Becky Pennington & Monica Hernandez-Alava & Stephen Pudney & Allan Wailoo, 2019. "The Impact of Moving from EQ-5D-3L to -5L in NICE Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 75-84, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0701-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0701-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0701-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0701-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Koonal Shah & Mathieu F. Janssen & Michael Herdman & Ben Hout & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 699-713, June.
    2. Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Koonal Shah & Mathieu F. Janssen & Michael Herdman & Ben Hout & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Correction to: Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 727-727, June.
    3. Ines Buchholz & Mathieu F. Janssen & Thomas Kohlmann & You-Shan Feng, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 645-661, June.
    4. Mathieu F. Janssen & Gouke J. Bonsel & Nan Luo, 2018. "Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 675-697, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ting Zhou & Zhiyuan Chen & Hongchao Li & Feng Xie, 2021. "Using Published Health Utilities in Cost-Utility Analyses: Discrepancies and Issues in Cardiovascular Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(6), pages 685-692, August.
    2. Beth Woods & Aimée Fox & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2021. "Estimating the shares of the value of branded pharmaceuticals accruing to manufacturers and to patients served by health systems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2649-2666, November.
    3. Joanne Gregory & Matthew Dyer & Christopher Hoyle & Helen Mann & Anthony J. Hatswell, 2020. "The validation of published utility mapping algorithms: an example of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D in non-small cell lung cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ângela Jornada Ben & Johanna M. Dongen & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Mohamed El Alili & Judith E. Bosmans, 2023. "To what extent does the use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets impact reimbursement decisions?: a simulation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1253-1270, November.
    2. Guizhi Weng & Yanming Hong & Nan Luo & Clara Mukuria & Jie Jiang & Zhihao Yang & Sha Li, 2023. "Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 197-207, March.
    3. Kamilla Koszorú & Krisztina Hajdu & Valentin Brodszky & Alex Bató & L. Hunor Gergely & Anikó Kovács & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Miklós Sárdy & Andrea Szegedi & Fanni Rencz, 2023. "Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and utilities in atopic dermatitis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 139-152, February.
    4. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Mulhern, Brendan, 2022. "Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    5. Nancy Devlin & John Brazier & A. Simon Pickard & Elly Stolk, 2018. "3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE Conundrum," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 637-640, June.
    6. Elena Olariu & Wael Mohammed & Yemi Oluboyede & Raluca Caplescu & Ileana Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Marian Sorin Paveliu & Luke Vale, 2023. "EQ-5D-5L: a value set for Romania," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 399-412, April.
    7. Jiaer Lin & Carlos King Ho Wong & Jason Pui Yin Cheung & Prudence Wing Hang Cheung & Nan Luo, 2022. "Psychometric performance of proxy-reported EQ-5D youth version 5-level (EQ-5D-Y-5L) in comparison with three-level (EQ-5D-Y-3L) in children and adolescents with scoliosis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1383-1395, November.
    8. Eliza Kruger & Daniel Aggio & Hayley Freitas & Andrew Lloyd, 2023. "Estimation of Health Utility Scores for Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ia," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 627-638, July.
    9. Hani Dimassi & Soumana C. Nasser & Aline Issa & Sarine S. Adrian & Bassima Hazimeh, 2021. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Health Conditions in Lebanese Community Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    10. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    11. Yirui Ma & Jie Deng & Qiao Liu & Min Du & Min Liu & Jue Liu, 2022. "Long-Term Consequences of COVID-19 at 6 Months and Above: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Carlos King Ho Wong & Prudence Wing Hang Cheung & Nan Luo & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2019. "A head-to-head comparison of five-level (EQ-5D-5L-Y) and three-level EQ-5D-Y questionnaires in paediatric patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 647-656, July.
    13. Merili Tamson & Rainer Reile & Diana Sokurova & Kaire Innos & Eha Nurk & Kaia Laidra & Sigrid Vorobjov, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Socio-Demographic and Behavioural Correlates during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Estonia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-12, July.
    14. Anne Simone Juhl Christiansen & Marie Louise Sletskov Møller & Christian Kronborg & Ketil Jørgen Haugan & Lars Køber & Søren Højberg & Axel Brandes & Claus Graff & Søren Zöga Diederichsen & Jonas Bill, 2021. "Comparison of the three-level and the five-level versions of the EQ-5D," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 621-628, June.
    15. Shengxiang Sang & Wei Liao & Ning Kang & Xueyan Wu & Ze Hu & Xiaotian Liu & Hongjian Zhang & Chongjian Wang, 2024. "Health-related quality of life assessed by EQ-5D-5L and its determinants among rural adults: result from the Henan rural cohort study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 21-30, February.
    16. Anna Selivanova & Erik Buskens & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2018. "Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 715-725, June.
    17. Kailu Wang & Xiaopeng Guo & Siyue Yu & Lu Gao & Zihao Wang & Huijuan Zhu & Bing Xing & Shuyang Zhang & Dong Dong, 2021. "Mapping of the acromegaly quality of life questionnaire to ED-5D-5L index score among patients with acromegaly," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1381-1391, December.
    18. Laura Muñoz-Bermejo & María José González-Becerra & Sabina Barrios-Fernández & Salvador Postigo-Mota & María del Rocío Jerez-Barroso & Juan Agustín Franco Martínez & Belén Suárez-Lantarón & Diego Muño, 2022. "Cost-Effectiveness of the Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Program-Care in Informal Caregivers of People with Alzheimer’s Disease," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Daniele Fineschi & Sofia Acciai & Margherita Napolitani & Giovanni Scarafuggi & Gabriele Messina & Giovanni Guarducci & Nicola Nante, 2022. "Game of Mirrors: Health Profiles in Patient and Physician Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-8, January.
    20. Marion Egger & Lena Vogelgesang & Judith Reitelbach & Jeannine Bergmann & Friedemann Müller & Klaus Jahn, 2023. "Severe Post-COVID-19 Condition after Mild Infection: Physical and Mental Health Eight Months Post Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-14, December.

    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:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0701-y. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.