In search of a common currency: A comparison of seven EQ‐5D‐5L value sets

The recently published EQ-5D-5L value sets from Canada, England, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, and Uruguay are compared with an aim to identify any similarities in preference pattern. We identify some striking similarities for Canada, England, the Netherlands, and Spain in terms of (a) the relative importance of the 5 dimensions; (b) the relative utility decrements across the 5 levels; and (c) the scale length. On the basis of the observed similarities across these 4 Western countries, we develop an amalgam model, WePP (western preference pattern), and compare it with these 4 value sets. The values generated by this model show a high degree of concordance with those of England, Canada, and Spain. Patient level data were obtained from the Multi-Instrument Comparison project, which includes participants from 6 countries in 7 disease groups (N = 7,933): The WePP values lie within the confidence intervals for the value sets in Canada, England, and Spain across the whole severity distribution. We suggest that the WePP model represents a useful "common currency" for (Western) countries that have not yet developed their own value sets. Further research is needed to disentangle the differences between value sets due to preference heterogeneity from those stemming from methodological differences.

[1]  G Ardine de Wit,et al.  Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[2]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Valuation and Modeling of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using a Hybrid Approach , 2014, Medical care.

[3]  J. Olsen,et al.  Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010 , 2014, PharmacoEconomics (Auckland).

[4]  J. Richardson Review and Critique of Health Related Multi Attribute Utility Instruments , 2011 .

[5]  Mark Oppe,et al.  A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[6]  J. Richardson Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments , 2012 .

[7]  Brendan Mulhern,et al.  Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England , 2017, Health economics.

[8]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[9]  Nan Luo,et al.  The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[10]  A. Lloyd Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? , 2003, Health economics.

[11]  N. Bansback,et al.  A Time Trade-off-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada , 2015, Medical care.

[12]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[13]  Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi,et al.  An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  Takashi Fukuda,et al.  Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set , 2015 .

[15]  A. Pickard,et al.  Transforming Latent Utilities to Health Utilities: East Does Not Meet West , 2017, Health economics.