Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Brendan Mulhern (), Yan Feng, Koonal Shah (), Mathieu F. Janssen, Michael Herdman, Ben Hout and Nancy Devlin ()
Additional contact information
Brendan Mulhern: University of Technology Sydney
Mathieu F. Janssen: Erasmus University
Michael Herdman: Office of Health Economics
Ben Hout: University of Sheffield

PharmacoEconomics, 2018, vol. 36, issue 6, No 6, 699-713

Abstract: Abstract Background Three EQ-5D value sets (EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk, and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost-utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets’ characteristics differ, and it is important to assess the implications of these differences. Objective The aim of this paper is to compare the three value sets. Methods We carried out analysis comparing the predicted values from each value set, and investigated how differences in health on the descriptive system is reflected in the utility score by assessing the value of adjacent states. We also assessed differences in values using data from patients who completed both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Results The distribution of the value sets systematically differed. EQ-5D-5L values were higher than EQ-5D-3L/crosswalk values. The overall range and difference between adjacent states was smaller. In the patient data, the EQ-5D-5L produced higher values across all conditions and there was some evidence that the value sets rank different health conditions in a similar severity order. Conclusions There are important differences between the value sets. Due to the smaller range of EQ-5D-5L values, the possible change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) might be reduced, but they will apply to both control and intervention groups, and will depend on whether the gain is in quality of life, survival, or both. The increased sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L may also favour QALY gains even if the changes in utility are smaller. Further work should assess the impact of the different value sets on cost effectiveness by repeating the analysis on clinical trial data.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3 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:36:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0628-3

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

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3

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 ().