Literature DB >> 23116289

Continuous time simulation and discretized models for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Marta O Soares1, Luísa Canto E Castro.   

Abstract

The design of decision-analytic models for cost-effectiveness analysis has been the subject of discussion. The current work addresses this issue by noting that, when time is to be explicitly modelled, we need to represent phenomena occurring in continuous time. Models evaluated in continuous time may not have closed-form solutions, and in this case, two approximations can be used: simulation models in continuous time and discretized models at the aggregate level. Stylized examples were set up where both approximations could be implemented. These aimed to illustrate determinants of the use of the two approximations: cycle length and precision, the use of continuity corrections in discretized models and the discretization of rates into probabilities. The examples were also used to explore the impact of the approximations not only in terms of absolute survival but also cost effectiveness and incremental comparisons. Discretized models better approximate continuous time results if lower cycle lengths are used. Continuous time simulation models are inherently stochastic, and the precision of the results is determined by the simulation sample size. The use of continuity corrections in discretized models allows the use of greater cycle lengths, producing no significant bias from the discretization. How the process is discretized (the conversion of rates into probabilities) is key. Results show that appropriate discretization coupled with the use of a continuity correction produces results unbiased for higher cycle lengths. Alternative methods of discretization are less efficient, i.e. lower cycle lengths are needed to obtain unbiased results. The developed work showed the importance of acknowledging bias in estimating cost effectiveness. When the alternative approximations can be applied, we argue that it is preferable to implement a cohort discretized model rather than a simulation model in continuous time. In practice, however, it may not be possible to represent the decision problem by any conventionally defined discretized model, in which case other model designs need to be applied, e.g. a simulation model.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23116289     DOI: 10.2165/11599380-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  34 in total

1.  Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation.

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra.

Authors:  Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Chris McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Ron Akehurst; Martin Buxton; John Brazier; Tony O'Hagan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Rates and probabilities in economic modelling: transformation, translation and appropriate application.

Authors:  Rachael L Fleurence; Christopher S Hollenbeak
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Accuracy versus transparency in pharmacoeconomic modelling: finding the right balance.

Authors:  David M Eddy
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life.

Authors:  M J Buxton; M F Drummond; B A Van Hout; R L Prince; T A Sheldon; T Szucs; M Vray
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  A Monte Carlo simulation of advanced HIV disease: application to prevention of CMV infection.

Authors:  A D Paltiel; J A Scharfstein; G R Seage; E Losina; S J Goldie; M C Weinstein; D E Craven; K A Freedberg
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1998 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Gaussian process modeling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modeling: a case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis.

Authors:  M D Stevenson; J Oakley; J B Chilcott
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  P Barton; P Jobanputra; J Wilson; S Bryan; A Burls
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  Probabilistic analysis and computationally expensive models: Necessary and required?

Authors:  Susan Griffin; Karl Claxton; Neil Hawkins; Mark Sculpher
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making?

Authors:  Mark J Sculpher; Karl Claxton; Mike Drummond; Chris McCabe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  5 in total

1.  Myths and Misconceptions of Within-Cycle Correction: A Guide for Modelers and Decision Makers.

Authors:  Elamin H Elbasha; Jagpreet Chhatwal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Characterizing Heterogeneity Bias in Cohort-Based Models.

Authors:  Elamin H Elbasha; Jagpreet Chhatwal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Economic Analysis of First-Line Treatment with Cetuximab or Panitumumab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in England.

Authors:  Irina A Tikhonova; Nicola Huxley; Tristan Snowsill; Louise Crathorne; Jo Varley-Campbell; Mark Napier; Martin Hoyle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice.

Authors:  James F O'Mahony; Anthony T Newall; Joost van Rosmalen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A theoretical foundation for state-transition cohort models in health decision analysis.

Authors:  Rowan Iskandar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.