Literature DB >> 24385259

Systematic assessment of decision-analytic models for chronic myeloid leukemia.

Ursula Rochau1, Ruth Schwarzer, Beate Jahn, Gaby Sroczynski, Martina Kluibenschaedl, Dominik Wolf, Jerald Radich, Diana Brixner, Guenther Gastl, Uwe Siebert.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are approved for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Decision-analytic modeling can help to extrapolate data from short-term clinical trials and also consider quality of life when evaluating different treatment strategies.
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to describe and analyze the structural and methodological approaches of published decision-analytic models for various treatment strategies in CML and to derive recommendations for the development of future CML models. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE/PreMEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, NHS EED, and Tuft's CEA Registry) to identify published studies evaluating CML treatment strategies using mathematical models. The search was updated in August 2013. STUDY SELECTION: The models were required to compare different treatment strategies in relation to relevant clinical and patient-relevant health outcomes [e.g., life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years] over a defined time horizon and population. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
METHODS: We used standardized forms for data extraction, description of study design, methodological framework, and data sources for each model.
RESULTS: We identified 18 different decision-analytic modeling studies. Of these, 17 included economic evaluations. Modeling approaches included decision trees, Markov cohort models, state-transition models with individual (Monte Carlo) simulations, and mathematical equations. Analytic time horizons ranged from 2 years to a lifetime. Treatment strategies compared included bone marrow or stem cell transplantation, conventional chemotherapy, interferon-α, and TKIs. Only one model evaluated a second-generation TKI. Most models did not report a model validation. All models conducted deterministic sensitivity analyses and four reported a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. LIMITATIONS: Articles that were not published in English or German were not included in this review. Our literature search was restricted to published full-text articles in certain databases. Therefore, publications that met our inclusion criteria but were published in different databases, different languages, or as abstracts only may have been missed.
CONCLUSIONS: While several well-designed models of CML treatment strategies exist, there remains a need for the assessment of the long-term efficacy and cost effectiveness of novel treatment options such as second-generation TKIs. Additionally, these models should be validated using independent data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24385259     DOI: 10.1007/s40258-013-0071-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  3 in total

Review 1.  Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches for the Cost Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Treatment with Direct-Acting Antivirals.

Authors:  Jagpreet Chhatwal; Tianhua He; Maria A Lopez-Olivo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Homogeneity in prediction of survival probabilities for subcategories of hipprosthesis data: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association, 2000-2013.

Authors:  Christoffer Bartz-Johannessen; Ove Furnes; Anne Marie Fenstad; Stein Atle Lie; Alma Becic Pedersen; Søren Overgaard; Johan Kärrholm; Henrik Malchau; Keijo Mäkelä; Antti Eskelinen; Jeremy M Wilkinson
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 4.790

Review 3.  Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Pieter T de Boer; Geert W J Frederix; Talitha L Feenstra; Pepijn Vemer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.981

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.