There are three EQ-5D value sets available for use in cost effectiveness analysis in the UK and/or England:
- the UK EQ-5D-3L value set (often called the ‘MVH’ value set) which has been used for two decades, e.g. in evidence submitted to NICE (Dolan, 1997);
- a ‘crosswalk’ value set (van Hout et al., 2012), which maps patients’ EQ-5D-5L data to the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system, so that the MVH value set can be applied; and
- the EQ-5D-5L value set for England (Devlin et al., 2016).
How do these value sets differ? And how important are these differences likely to be for users?
A new OHE Research Paper by Mulhern et al. (2017) compares the characteristics of the value sets.
Mulhern, B., Feng, Y., Shah, K., van Hout, B., Janssen, B., Herdman, M. and Devlin, N.
Three EQ-5D value sets (the 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 systematically assess the implications of these differences for the value generated. The aim of this paper is to compare the characteristics of the three value sets. In this Research Report we analyse and compare the predicted values from each of the three value sets, and also compare EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L data from patients who completed both measures.
OHE’s Professor Nancy Devlin and co-author Richard Brooks have published a new paper that provides an overview of the development of the EQ-5D; the current state of play; and what the future might hold for the further development and use of EQ-5D instruments in HTA and other applications.
Zamora, B., Maignen, F., O’Neill, P., Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. and Garau, M.
The European Commission’s (EC) Orphan Medicinal Products Regulation intended to incentivise the research, development and marketing of new treatments for rare and chronically disabling or life-threatening diseases. Marketing authorisation granted to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is however only the first step; patients have access to medicines once reimbursement or health technology assessment (HTA) decisions are implemented by national health systems.
Marsden, G., Towse, A., Pearson, S.D., Dreitlein, B. and Henshall, C.
This report presents an analysis of the significant clinical potential of gene therapy and the unique challenges in developing and evaluating evidence on their effectiveness and value. Special attention is given to pricing and payment mechanisms, including new approaches to payment based on long-term amortization of initial costs.
On Thursday 16th March, OHE's Nancy Devlin will lead an educational webinar, in collaboration with Kevin Marsh and Praveen Thokala, on Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making - Emerging Good Practices.
In 2016 the University of York undertook a review exercise to determine whether NICE’s existing methods and processes are appropriate for assessment of regenerative medicines. The purpose of this OHE report is to explore this review exercise and to assess whether or not the resulting conclusions are appropriate.