Literature DB >> 25851486

Characterizing Heterogeneity Bias in Cohort-Based Models.

Elamin H Elbasha1, Jagpreet Chhatwal.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Previous research using numerical methods suggested that use of a cohort-based model instead of an individual-based model can result in significant heterogeneity bias. However, the direction of the bias is not known a priori. We characterized mathematically the conditions that lead to upward or downward bias.
METHOD: We used a standard three-state disease progression model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a hypothetical intervention. We solved the model analytically and derived expressions for life expectancy, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted lifetime costs and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). An outcome was calculated using the mean of the input under the cohort-based approach and the whole input distribution for all persons under the individual-based approach. We investigated the impact of heterogeneity on outcomes by varying one parameter at a time while keeping all others constant. We evaluated the curvature of outcome functions and used Jensen's inequality to determine the direction of the bias.
RESULTS: Both life expectancy and QALYs were underestimated by the cohort-based approach. If there was heterogeneity only in disease progression, total costs were overestimated, whereas QALYs gained, incremental costs and INMB were under- or overestimated, depending on the progression rate. INMB was underestimated when only efficacy was heterogeneous. Both approaches yielded the same outcome when the heterogeneity was only in cost or utilities.
CONCLUSION: A cohort-based approach that does not adjust for heterogeneity underestimates life expectancy and may underestimate or overestimate other outcomes. Characterizing the bias is useful for comparative assessment of models and informing decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25851486     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0273-z

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


  16 in total

1.  Assessing the sensitivity of decision-analytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias.

Authors:  Karen M Kuntz; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care.

Authors:  Anirban Basu; David Meltzer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Decision-analytic models: current methodological challenges.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro; Jörgen Möller
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.981

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

Authors:  Marta O Soares; Luísa Canto E Castro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3.

Authors:  Uwe Siebert; Oguzhan Alagoz; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Beate Jahn; Douglas K Owens; David J Cohen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  The Markov process in medical prognosis.

Authors:  J R Beck; S G Pauker
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models.

Authors:  Bas Groot Koerkamp; Milton C Weinstein; Theo Stijnen; M H Heijenbrok-Kal; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation : a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Janneke P C Grutters; Mark Sculpher; Andrew H Briggs; Johan L Severens; Math J Candel; James E Stahl; Dirk De Ruysscher; Albert Boer; Bram L T Ramaekers; Manuela A Joore
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Mark Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  The value of heterogeneity for cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis: conceptual framework and application.

Authors:  Manuel A Espinoza; Andrea Manca; Karl Claxton; Mark J Sculpher
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  2 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.  Understanding bias in probabilistic analysis in model-based health economic evaluation.

Authors:  Xuanqian Xie; Alexis K Schaink; Sichen Liu; Myra Wang; Andrei Volodin
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-05-24
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.