NICE position statement for EQ-5D-5L


Some very important information, released a few days ago, with regards to the use of the EQ-5D-5L valuation set.

Below is the link to the NICE statement

Just to summarise the main points:

Currently the 5L valuation set is not recommended for use. Companies, academic groups, and others preparing evidence submissions for NICE should:
• Use the 3L valuation set for reference-case analyses.
• If data were gathered using the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system, reference-case analyses should calculate utility values by mapping the 5L descriptive system data onto the 3L valuation set.
• If analyses use data gathered using both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems, use the 3L valuation set to derive all utility values, with 5L mapped onto 3L where needed.
• Whilst several mapping functions are available (Hernandez Alava et al. 2017), for consistency with the current guide to the methods of technology appraisal, the mapping function developed by van Hout et al. (2012) should be used for reference-case analyses.
• NICE supports sponsors of prospective clinical studies continuing to use the 5L version of EQ-5D descriptive system to collect data on quality of life.

EuroQol group’s response to the statement can be found at:

Personally, I don't think that changes our plans to use EQ-5D-5L in our trials. NICE seem to be ok with the 5L questionnaire and they recommend the mapping between 3L and 5L if 5L questionnaire is used in a study. So I guess we could continue to use 5L but use the mapping algorithm to get utility values rather than using the new value set.

NICE plans to review this statement in August 2018.

if you want to hear more about the EQ-5D-5L value set for England, Dr Yan Feng (Office of Health Economics) will be giving a talk on Wednesday 11th October at the Botnar Research Centre from 13.30 – 14.30, poster attached.