What should analysts do when there is a choice of mapping from 5L to 3L, or from a disease specific outcome to 5L?
Currently, NICE does not support the use of the EQ-5D-5L valuation for use in appraisals (see NICE Position Statement1). Instead, where the 5L descriptive system has been used in clinical studies, analysts are advised to map to the EQ-5D-3L valuation set using the cross tabulation approach of van Hout et al. (2012).
In some situations, analysts have an alternative option available to them. This is to map from disease specific outcome measures onto the EQ-5D-3L, either by estimating their own mapping model if they have data available to do so, or using existing available mappings. It is not known which of these two alternatives should be undertaken, or, if estimates based on both approaches are presented, which the committee should prefer.
1 NICE Position Statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-appraisal-guidance/eq5d5l_nice_position_statement.pdf
DSU Report – Disease specific versus generic mapping methods: how to link outcomes to EQ-5D (November 2019)