Literature DB >> 29110141

Oncology Modeling for Fun and Profit! Key Steps for Busy Analysts in Health Technology Assessment.

Jaclyn Beca1, Don Husereau2,3, Kelvin K W Chan4,5, Neil Hawkins6, Jeffrey S Hoch7.   

Abstract

In evaluating new oncology medicines, two common modeling approaches are state transition (e.g., Markov and semi-Markov) and partitioned survival. Partitioned survival models have become more prominent in oncology health technology assessment processes in recent years. Our experience in conducting and evaluating models for economic evaluation has highlighted many important and practical pitfalls. As there is little guidance available on best practices for those who wish to conduct them, we provide guidance in the form of 'Key steps for busy analysts,' who may have very little time and require highly favorable results. Our guidance highlights the continued need for rigorous conduct and transparent reporting of economic evaluations regardless of the modeling approach taken, and the importance of modeling that better reflects reality, which includes better approaches to considering plausibility, estimating relative treatment effects, dealing with post-progression effects, and appropriate characterization of the uncertainty from modeling itself.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29110141     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0583-4

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


  34 in total

1.  Survival analysis and extrapolation modeling of time-to-event clinical trial data for economic evaluation: an alternative approach.

Authors:  Adrian Bagust; Sophie Beale
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 2.  Harmonization of reimbursement and regulatory approval processes: a systematic review of international experiences.

Authors:  Bernice Tsoi; Lisa Masucci; Kaitryn Campbell; Michael Drummond; Daria O'Reilly; Ron Goeree
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.217

3.  Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.

Authors:  David C Hoaglin; Neil Hawkins; Jeroen P Jansen; David A Scott; Robbin Itzler; Joseph C Cappelleri; Cornelis Boersma; David Thompson; Kay M Larholt; Mireya Diaz; Annabel Barrett
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--1.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro; Andrew H Briggs; Uwe Siebert; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 5.  Analyzing overall survival in randomized controlled trials with crossover and implications for economic evaluation.

Authors:  Linus Jönsson; Rickard Sandin; Mattias Ekman; Joakim Ramsberg; Claudie Charbonneau; Xin Huang; Bengt Jönsson; Milton C Weinstein; Michael Drummond
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes.

Authors:  Ron Goeree; Julie Villeneuve; Jeff Goeree; John R Penrod; Lucinda Orsini; Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared
Journal:  J Med Econ       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.448

7.  A quality-of-life-oriented endpoint for comparing therapies.

Authors:  R D Gelber; R S Gelman; A Goldhirsch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

Authors:  Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Does it Matter Whether Canada's Separate Health Technology Assessment Process for Cancer Drugs has an Economic Rationale?

Authors:  Jeffrey S Hoch; Jaclyn Beca; Mona Sabharwal; Scott W Livingstone; Anthony L A Fields
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  AdViSHE: A Validation-Assessment Tool of Health-Economic Models for Decision Makers and Model Users.

Authors:  P Vemer; I Corro Ramos; G A K van Voorn; M J Al; T L Feenstra
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.981

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Can You Repeat That? Exploring the Definition of a Successful Model Replication in Health Economics.

Authors:  Emma McManus; David Turner; Tracey Sach
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.981

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.