Martin Henriksson1,2, Ramandeep Jindal3, Catarina Sternhufvud4, Klas Bergenheim5, Elisabeth Sörstadius5, Michael Willis6. 1. PAREXEL International, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 3. PAREXEL International, Chandigarh, India. 4. Global Medicines Development | Global Payer Evidence and Pricing, AstraZeneca, SE-431 83, Mölndal, Sweden. Catarina.Sternhufvud@astrazeneca.com. 5. Global Medicines Development | Global Payer Evidence and Pricing, AstraZeneca, SE-431 83, Mölndal, Sweden. 6. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, IHE, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critiques of cost-effectiveness modelling in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are scarce and are often undertaken in combination with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) models. However, T1DM is a separate disease, and it is therefore important to appraise modelling methods in T1DM. OBJECTIVES: This review identified published economic models in T1DM and provided an overview of the characteristics and capabilities of available models, thus enabling a discussion of best-practice modelling approaches in T1DM. METHODS: A systematic review of Embase(®), MEDLINE(®), MEDLINE(®) In-Process, and NHS EED was conducted to identify available models in T1DM. Key conferences and health technology assessment (HTA) websites were also reviewed. The characteristics of each model (e.g. model structure, simulation method, handling of uncertainty, incorporation of treatment effect, data for risk equations, and validation procedures, based on information in the primary publication) were extracted, with a focus on model capabilities. RESULTS: We identified 13 unique models. Overall, the included studies varied greatly in scope as well as in the quality and quantity of information reported, but six of the models (Archimedes, CDM [Core Diabetes Model], CRC DES [Cardiff Research Consortium Discrete Event Simulation], DCCT [Diabetes Control and Complications Trial], Sheffield, and EAGLE [Economic Assessment of Glycaemic control and Long-term Effects of diabetes]) were the most rigorous and thoroughly reported. Most models were Markov based, and cohort and microsimulation methods were equally common. All of the more comprehensive models employed microsimulation methods. Model structure varied widely, with the more holistic models providing a comprehensive approach to microvascular and macrovascular events, as well as including adverse events. The majority of studies reported a lifetime horizon, used a payer perspective, and had the capability for sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Several models have been developed that provide useful insight into T1DM modelling. Based on a review of the models identified in this study, we identified a set of 'best in class' methods for the different technical aspects of T1DM modelling.
BACKGROUND: Critiques of cost-effectiveness modelling in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are scarce and are often undertaken in combination with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) models. However, T1DM is a separate disease, and it is therefore important to appraise modelling methods in T1DM. OBJECTIVES: This review identified published economic models in T1DM and provided an overview of the characteristics and capabilities of available models, thus enabling a discussion of best-practice modelling approaches in T1DM. METHODS: A systematic review of Embase(®), MEDLINE(®), MEDLINE(®) In-Process, and NHS EED was conducted to identify available models in T1DM. Key conferences and health technology assessment (HTA) websites were also reviewed. The characteristics of each model (e.g. model structure, simulation method, handling of uncertainty, incorporation of treatment effect, data for risk equations, and validation procedures, based on information in the primary publication) were extracted, with a focus on model capabilities. RESULTS: We identified 13 unique models. Overall, the included studies varied greatly in scope as well as in the quality and quantity of information reported, but six of the models (Archimedes, CDM [Core Diabetes Model], CRC DES [Cardiff Research Consortium Discrete Event Simulation], DCCT [Diabetes Control and Complications Trial], Sheffield, and EAGLE [Economic Assessment of Glycaemic control and Long-term Effects of diabetes]) were the most rigorous and thoroughly reported. Most models were Markov based, and cohort and microsimulation methods were equally common. All of the more comprehensive models employed microsimulation methods. Model structure varied widely, with the more holistic models providing a comprehensive approach to microvascular and macrovascular events, as well as including adverse events. The majority of studies reported a lifetime horizon, used a payer perspective, and had the capability for sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Several models have been developed that provide useful insight into T1DM modelling. Based on a review of the models identified in this study, we identified a set of 'best in class' methods for the different technical aspects of T1DM modelling.
Authors: Andrew J Palmer; Stéphane Roze; William J Valentine; Michael E Minshall; Volker Foos; Francesco M Lurati; Morten Lammert; Giatgen A Spinas Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Andrew J Palmer; Stéphane Roze; William J Valentine; Michael E Minshall; Volker Foos; Francesco M Lurati; Morten Lammert; Giatgen A Spinas Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: J Kruger; A Brennan; P Thokala; H Basarir; R Jacques; J Elliott; S Heller; J Speight Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Andrew J Palmer; Philip Clarke; Alastair Gray; Jose Leal; Adam Lloyd; David Grant; James Palmer; Volker Foos; Mark Lamotte; William Hermann; Jacob Barhak; Michael Willis; Ruth Coleman; Ping Zhang; Phil McEwan; Jonathan Betz Brown; Ulf Gerdtham; Elbert Huang; Andrew Briggs; Katarina Steen Carlsson; William Valentine Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Wen Wan; M Reza Skandari; Alexa Minc; Aviva G Nathan; Parmida Zarei; Aaron N Winn; Michael O'Grady; Elbert S Huang Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Wen Wan; Aviva G Nathan; M Reza Skandari; Parmida Zarei; Mark W Reid; Jennifer K Raymond; Elbert S Huang Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Katherine Ogurtsova; Thomas L Heise; Ute Linnenkamp; Charalabos-Markos Dintsios; Stefan K Lhachimi; Andrea Icks Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2017-12-29
Authors: An Tran-Duy; Josh Knight; Andrew J Palmer; Dennis Petrie; Tom W C Lung; William H Herman; Björn Eliasson; Ann-Marie Svensson; Philip M Clarke Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 19.112