OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and value of simulating whole disease and treatment pathways within a single model to provide a common economic basis for informing resource allocation decisions. METHODS: A patient-level simulation model was developed with the intention of being capable of evaluating multiple topics within National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's colorectal cancer clinical guideline. The model simulates disease and treatment pathways from preclinical disease through to detection, diagnosis, adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatments, follow-up, curative/palliative treatments for metastases, supportive care, and eventual death. The model parameters were informed by meta-analyses, randomized trials, observational studies, health utility studies, audit data, costing sources, and expert opinion. Unobservable natural history parameters were calibrated against external data using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Economic analysis was undertaken using conventional cost-utility decision rules within each guideline topic and constrained maximization rules across multiple topics. RESULTS: Under usual processes for guideline development, piecewise economic modeling would have been used to evaluate between one and three topics. The Whole Disease Model was capable of evaluating 11 of 15 guideline topics, ranging from alternative diagnostic technologies through to treatments for metastatic disease. The constrained maximization analysis identified a configuration of colorectal services that is expected to maximize quality-adjusted life-year gains without exceeding current expenditure levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that Whole Disease Model development is feasible and can allow for the economic analysis of most interventions across a disease service within a consistent conceptual and mathematical infrastructure. This disease-level modeling approach may be of particular value in providing an economic basis to support other clinical guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and value of simulating whole disease and treatment pathways within a single model to provide a common economic basis for informing resource allocation decisions. METHODS: A patient-level simulation model was developed with the intention of being capable of evaluating multiple topics within National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's colorectal cancer clinical guideline. The model simulates disease and treatment pathways from preclinical disease through to detection, diagnosis, adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatments, follow-up, curative/palliative treatments for metastases, supportive care, and eventual death. The model parameters were informed by meta-analyses, randomized trials, observational studies, health utility studies, audit data, costing sources, and expert opinion. Unobservable natural history parameters were calibrated against external data using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Economic analysis was undertaken using conventional cost-utility decision rules within each guideline topic and constrained maximization rules across multiple topics. RESULTS: Under usual processes for guideline development, piecewise economic modeling would have been used to evaluate between one and three topics. The Whole Disease Model was capable of evaluating 11 of 15 guideline topics, ranging from alternative diagnostic technologies through to treatments for metastatic disease. The constrained maximization analysis identified a configuration of colorectal services that is expected to maximize quality-adjusted life-year gains without exceeding current expenditure levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that Whole Disease Model development is feasible and can allow for the economic analysis of most interventions across a disease service within a consistent conceptual and mathematical infrastructure. This disease-level modeling approach may be of particular value in providing an economic basis to support other clinical guidelines.
Authors: Kate M Johnson; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Amin Adibi; Larry Lynd; Mark Harrison; Hamid Tavakoli; Don D Sin; Stirling Bryan Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Antonieta Medina-Lara; Bogdan Grigore; Ruth Lewis; Jaime Peters; Sarah Price; Paolo Landa; Sophie Robinson; Richard Neal; William Hamilton; Anne E Spencer Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Christopher J Cadham; Marie Knoll; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; K Michael Cummings; Clifford E Douglas; Alex Liber; David Mendez; Rafael Meza; Ritesh Mistry; Aylin Sertkaya; Nargiz Travis; David T Levy Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Elisabeth van der Meijde; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Sabine C Linn; Gerrit A Meijer; Remond J A Fijneman; Veerle M H Coupé Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2016-06-15
Authors: Arantzazu Arrospide; Isabel Idigoras; Javier Mar; Harry de Koning; Miriam van der Meulen; Myriam Soto-Gordoa; Jose Miguel Martinez-Llorente; Isabel Portillo; Eunate Arana-Arri; Oliver Ibarrondo; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.430