Martine Hoogendoorn1, Talitha L Feenstra2, Yumi Asukai3, Sixten Borg4, Ryan N Hansen5, Sven-Arne Jansson6, Yevgeniy Samyshkin3, Margarethe Wacker7, Andrew H Briggs8, Adam Lloyd3, Sean D Sullivan5, Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken9. 1. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: hoogendoorn@bmg.eur.nl. 2. Department for Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. IMS Health, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Real-World Evidence Solutions, London, UK. 4. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, Lund, Sweden; Health Economics Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 5. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. The OLIN Studies, Luleå, Sweden. 7. Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich, Neuherberg, Germany. 8. Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 9. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models with respect to structure and input parameters and to cross-validate the models by running the same hypothetical treatment scenarios. METHODS: COPD modeling groups simulated four hypothetical interventions with their model and compared the results with a reference scenario of no intervention. The four interventions modeled assumed 1) 20% reduction in decline in lung function, 2) 25% reduction in exacerbation frequency, 3) 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 4) all these effects combined. The interventions were simulated for a 5-year and lifetime horizon with standardization, if possible, for sex, age, COPD severity, smoking status, exacerbation frequencies, mortality due to other causes, utilities, costs, and discount rates. Furthermore, uncertainty around the outcomes of intervention four was compared. RESULTS: Seven out of nine contacted COPD modeling groups agreed to participate. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the most comprehensive intervention, intervention four, was €17,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two models, €25,000 to €28,000/QALY for three models, and €47,000/QALY for the remaining two models. Differences in the ICERs could mainly be explained by differences in input values for disease progression, exacerbation-related mortality, and all-cause mortality, with high input values resulting in low ICERs and vice versa. Lifetime results were mainly affected by the input values for mortality. The probability of intervention four to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY was 90% to 100% for five models and about 70% and 50% for the other two models, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models.
OBJECTIVES: To compare different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models with respect to structure and input parameters and to cross-validate the models by running the same hypothetical treatment scenarios. METHODS: COPD modeling groups simulated four hypothetical interventions with their model and compared the results with a reference scenario of no intervention. The four interventions modeled assumed 1) 20% reduction in decline in lung function, 2) 25% reduction in exacerbation frequency, 3) 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 4) all these effects combined. The interventions were simulated for a 5-year and lifetime horizon with standardization, if possible, for sex, age, COPD severity, smoking status, exacerbation frequencies, mortality due to other causes, utilities, costs, and discount rates. Furthermore, uncertainty around the outcomes of intervention four was compared. RESULTS: Seven out of nine contacted COPD modeling groups agreed to participate. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the most comprehensive intervention, intervention four, was €17,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two models, €25,000 to €28,000/QALY for three models, and €47,000/QALY for the remaining two models. Differences in the ICERs could mainly be explained by differences in input values for disease progression, exacerbation-related mortality, and all-cause mortality, with high input values resulting in low ICERs and vice versa. Lifetime results were mainly affected by the input values for mortality. The probability of intervention four to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY was 90% to 100% for five models and about 70% and 50% for the other two models, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models.
Authors: Afisi S Ismaila; Nancy Risebrough; Melanie Schroeder; Dhvani Shah; Alan Martin; Emma C Goodall; Kerigo Ndirangu; Gerard Criner; Mark Dransfield; David Mg Halpin; MeiLan K Han; David A Lomas Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2019-11-29
Authors: Susannah McLean; Martine Hoogendoorn; Rudolf T Hoogenveen; Talitha L Feenstra; Sarah Wild; Colin R Simpson; Maureen Rutten-van Mölken; Aziz Sheikh Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Simon van der Schans; Lucas M A Goossens; Melinde R S Boland; Janwillem W H Kocks; Maarten J Postma; Job F M van Boven; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Michele R Wilson; Jeetvan G Patel; Amber Coleman; Cheryl L McDade; Richard H Stanford; Stephanie R Earnshaw Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2017-03-24
Authors: Carl Selya-Hammer; Nuria Gonzalez-Rojas Guix; Michael Baldwin; Andrew Ternouth; Marc Miravitlles; Maureen Rutten-van Mölken; Lucas M A Goosens; Nasuh Buyukkaramikli; Valentina Acciai Journal: Ther Adv Respir Dis Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 4.031
Authors: Tosin Lambe; Peymane Adab; Rachel E Jordan; Alice Sitch; Alex Enocson; Kate Jolly; Jen Marsh; Richard Riley; Martin Miller; Brendan G Cooper; Alice Margaret Turner; Jon G Ayres; Robert Stockley; Sheila Greenfield; Stanley Siebert; Amanda Daley; K K Cheng; David Fitzmaurice; Sue Jowett Journal: Thorax Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Mafalda Ramos; Mark Lamotte; Laetitia Gerlier; Per Svangren; Anna Miquel-Cases; John Haughney Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2019-01-15
Authors: Marc Miravitlles; Juan B Gáldiz; Alicia Huerta; Alba Villacampa; David Carcedo; Francisco Garcia-Rio Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2016-01-18
Authors: Martine Hoogendoorn; Talitha L Feenstra; Melinde Boland; Andrew H Briggs; Sixten Borg; Sven-Arne Jansson; Nancy A Risebrough; Julia F Slejko; Maureen Pmh Rutten-van Mölken Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2017-11-01