Use of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England: NICE position statement

Position statement

5. We do not recommend using the EQ-5D-5L value set for England published by Devlin et al. (2018). Companies, academic groups and others preparing evidence submissions for NICE should use the 3L value set for reference-case analyses.

6. If data was gathered using the EQ‑5D‑5L descriptive system, utility values in reference-case analyses should be calculated by mapping the 5L descriptive system data onto the 3L value set. If analyses use data gathered using both EQ‑5D‑3L and EQ‑5D‑5L descriptive systems, the 3L value set should be used to derive all utility values, with 5L mapped onto 3L where needed.

7. The mapping function developed by van Hout et al. (2012) should be used for reference-case analyses, for consistency with the current guide to the methods of technology appraisal (even though several mapping functions are available; Hernandez Alava et al. 2017).

8. We support sponsors of prospective clinical studies continuing to use the 5L version of the EQ‑5D descriptive system to collect data on quality of life.

9. We are committed to working with the Department of Health and Social Care, and other key stakeholders, to ensure that a 5L value set of an acceptable quality to allow adoption in our methods becomes available. EuroQol is commissioning a new 5L valuation study for England using an updated international standard protocol. We plan to review our policy on EQ-5D-5L when this new study is complete.