Ankur Pandya1, Stephen Sy1, Sylvia Cho2, Sartaj Alam1, Milton C Weinstein1, Thomas A Gaziano1,3. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA (AP, SS, SA, MCW, TAG). 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA (SC). 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA (TAG).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite some advances, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death and healthcare costs in the United States. We therefore developed a comprehensive CVD policy simulation model that identifies cost-effective approaches for reducing CVD burden. This paper aims to: 1) describe our model in detail; and 2) perform model validation analyses. METHODS: The model simulates 1,000,000 adults (ages 35 to 80 years) using a variety of CVD-related epidemiological data, including previously calibrated Framingham-based risk scores for coronary heart disease and stroke. We validated our microsimulation model using recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, with baseline values collected in 1999-2000 and cause-specific mortality follow-up through 2011. Model-based (simulated) results were compared to observed all-cause and CVD-specific mortality data (from NHANES) for the same starting population using survival curves and, in a method not typically used for disease model validation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Observed 10-year all-cause mortality in NHANES v. the simulation model was 11.2% (95% CI, 10.3% to 12.2%) v. 10.9%; corresponding results for CVD mortality were 2.2% (1.8% to 2.7%) v. 2.6%. Areas under the ROC curves for model-predicted 10-year all-cause and CVD mortality risks were 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) and 0.84 (0.81 to 0.88), respectively; corresponding results for 5-year risks were 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87), respectively. LIMITATIONS: The model is limited by the uncertainties in the data used to estimate its input parameters. Additionally, our validation analyses did not include non-fatal CVD outcomes due to NHANES data limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation model performed well in matching to observed nationally representative longitudinal mortality data. ROC curve analysis, which has been traditionally used for risk prediction models, can also be used to assess discrimination for disease simulation models.
BACKGROUND: Despite some advances, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death and healthcare costs in the United States. We therefore developed a comprehensive CVD policy simulation model that identifies cost-effective approaches for reducing CVD burden. This paper aims to: 1) describe our model in detail; and 2) perform model validation analyses. METHODS: The model simulates 1,000,000 adults (ages 35 to 80 years) using a variety of CVD-related epidemiological data, including previously calibrated Framingham-based risk scores for coronary heart disease and stroke. We validated our microsimulation model using recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, with baseline values collected in 1999-2000 and cause-specific mortality follow-up through 2011. Model-based (simulated) results were compared to observed all-cause and CVD-specific mortality data (from NHANES) for the same starting population using survival curves and, in a method not typically used for disease model validation, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Observed 10-year all-cause mortality in NHANES v. the simulation model was 11.2% (95% CI, 10.3% to 12.2%) v. 10.9%; corresponding results for CVD mortality were 2.2% (1.8% to 2.7%) v. 2.6%. Areas under the ROC curves for model-predicted 10-year all-cause and CVD mortality risks were 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) and 0.84 (0.81 to 0.88), respectively; corresponding results for 5-year risks were 0.80 (0.77 to 0.83) and 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87), respectively. LIMITATIONS: The model is limited by the uncertainties in the data used to estimate its input parameters. Additionally, our validation analyses did not include non-fatal CVD outcomes due to NHANES data limitations. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation model performed well in matching to observed nationally representative longitudinal mortality data. ROC curve analysis, which has been traditionally used for risk prediction models, can also be used to assess discrimination for disease simulation models.
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Maan Jokhadar; Steven J Jacobsen; Guy S Reeder; Susan A Weston; Véronique L Roger Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jacek A Kopec; Philippe Finès; Douglas G Manuel; David L Buckeridge; William M Flanagan; Jillian Oderkirk; Michal Abrahamowicz; Samuel Harper; Behnam Sharif; Anya Okhmatovskaia; Eric C Sayre; M Mushfiqur Rahman; Michael C Wolfson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-11-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David M Eddy; William Hollingworth; J Jaime Caro; Joel Tsevat; Kathryn M McDonald; John B Wong Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Parke Wilde; Yue Huang; Stephen Sy; Shafika Abrahams-Gessel; Thiago Veiga Jardim; Robert Paarlberg; Dariush Mozaffarian; Renata Micha; Thomas Gaziano Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Junxiu Liu; Dariush Mozaffarian; Tom Gaziano; Renata Micha; Stephen Sy; Yujin Lee; Parke E Wilde; Shafika Abrahams-Gessel Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Thomas A Gaziano; Renata Micha; Siyi Shangguan; Dariush Mozaffarian; Stephen Sy; Yujin Lee; Junxiu Liu; Parke E Wilde; Andrea L Sharkey; Erin A Dowling; Matti Marklund; Shafika Abrahams-Gessel Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yujin Lee; Dariush Mozaffarian; Stephen Sy; Yue Huang; Junxiu Liu; Parke E Wilde; Shafika Abrahams-Gessel; Thiago de Souza Veiga Jardim; Thomas A Gaziano; Renata Micha Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Ankur Pandya; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp; Stephen Sy; Andrea B Troxel; Jingsan Zhu; Milton C Weinstein; Meredith B Rosenthal; Thomas A Gaziano Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-09-07