RESUMO
PURPOSE: Inconsistent results have been found on the impact of using crosswalks versus EQ-5D value sets on reimbursement decisions. We sought to further investigate this issue in a simulation study. METHODS: Trial-based economic evaluation data were simulated for different conditions (depression, low back pain, osteoarthritis, cancer), severity levels (mild, moderate, severe), and effect sizes (small, medium, large). For all 36 scenarios, utilities were calculated using 3L and 5L value sets and crosswalks (3L to 5L and 5L to 3L crosswalks) for the Netherlands, the United States, and Japan. Utilities, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and probabilities of cost-effectiveness (pCE) obtained from values sets and crosswalks were compared. RESULTS: Differences between value sets and crosswalks ranged from -0.33 to 0.13 for utilities, from -0.18 to 0.13 for QALYs, and from -0.01 to 0.08 for incremental QALYs, resulting in different ICERs. For small effect sizes, at a willingness-to-pay of 20,000/QALY, the largest pCE difference was found for moderate cancer between the Japanese 5L value set and 5L to 3L crosswalk (difference = 0.63). For medium effect sizes, the largest difference was found for mild cancer between the Japanese 3L value set and 3L to 5L crosswalk (difference = 0.06). For large effect sizes, the largest difference was found for mild osteoarthritis between the Japanese 3L value set and 3L to 5L crosswalk (difference = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets can impact cost-utility outcomes to such an extent that this may influence reimbursement decisions.