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

Becky Pennington (), Monica Hernandez-Alava, Stephen Pudney and Allan Wailoo
Additional contact information
Becky Pennington: University of Sheffield
Monica Hernandez-Alava: University of Sheffield
Allan Wailoo: University of Sheffield
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Monica Hernandez Alava

PharmacoEconomics, 2019, vol. 37, issue 1, No 7, 75-84

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0701-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0701-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0701-y

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().