Literature DB >> 32431211

Accurately Reflecting Uncertainty When Using Patient-Level Simulation Models to Extrapolate Clinical Trial Data.

Helen A Dakin1, José Leal1, Andrew Briggs2, Philip Clarke1, Rury R Holman3, Alastair Gray1.   

Abstract

Introduction. Patient-level simulation models facilitate extrapolation of clinical trial data while allowing for heterogeneity, prior history, and nonlinearity. However, combining different types of uncertainty around within-trial and extrapolated results remains challenging. Methods. We tested 4 methods to combine parameter uncertainty (around the regression coefficients used to predict future events) with sampling uncertainty (uncertainty around mean risk factors within the finite sample whose outcomes are being predicted and the effect of treatment on these risk factors). We compared these 4 methods using a simulation study based on an economic evaluation extrapolating the AFORRD randomized controlled trial using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model version 2. This established type 2 diabetes model predicts patient-level health outcomes and costs. Results. The 95% confidence intervals around life years gained gave 25% coverage when sampling uncertainty was excluded (i.e., 25% of 95% confidence intervals contained the "true" value). Allowing for sampling uncertainty as well as parameter uncertainty widened confidence intervals by 6.3-fold and gave 96.3% coverage. Methods adjusting for baseline risk factors that combine sampling and parameter uncertainty overcame the bias that can result from between-group baseline imbalance and gave confidence intervals around 50% wider than those just considering parameter uncertainty, with 99.8% coverage. Conclusions. Analyses extrapolating data for individual trial participants should include both sampling uncertainty and parameter uncertainty and should adjust for any imbalance in baseline covariates.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision-analytical modeling; diabetes; patient-level simulation models; randomized controlled trial

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32431211      PMCID: PMC7323001          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20916442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  26 in total

Review 1.  Statistics notes: Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements.

Authors:  A J Vickers; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-10

2.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra.

Authors:  Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Chris McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Ron Akehurst; Martin Buxton; John Brazier; Tony O'Hagan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  The combined analysis of uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models.

Authors:  Bas Groot Koerkamp; Theo Stijnen; Milton C Weinstein; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA.

Authors:  Anthony O'Hagan; Matt Stevenson; Jason Madan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72).

Authors:  P M Clarke; A M Gray; A Briggs; R J Stevens; D R Matthews; R R Holman
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 10.122

6.  On the Assessment of Monte Carlo Error in Simulation-Based Statistical Analyses.

Authors:  Elizabeth Koehler; Elizabeth Brown; Sebastien J-P A Haneuse
Journal:  Am Stat       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 8.710

7.  Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice.

Authors:  Ian R White; Patrick Royston; Angela M Wood
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Missing... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data.

Authors:  Andrew Briggs; Taane Clark; Jane Wolstenholme; Philip Clarke
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Atorvastatin in Factorial with Omega-3 EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes (AFORRD): a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  R R Holman; S Paul; A Farmer; L Tucker; I M Stratton; H A W Neil
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2008-11-11       Impact factor: 10.122

View more
  3 in total

1.  Economic Evaluation of Factorial Trials: Cost-Utility Analysis of the Atorvastatin in Factorial With Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes 2 × 2 × 2 Factorial Trial of Atorvastatin, Omega-3 Fish Oil, and Action Planning.

Authors:  Helen A Dakin; Andrew Farmer; Alastair M Gray; Rury R Holman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Lifetime cost-effectiveness simulation of once-weekly exenatide in type 2 diabetes: A cost-utility analysis based on the EXSCEL trial.

Authors:  Frauke Becker; Helen A Dakin; Shelby D Reed; Yanhong Li; José Leal; Stephanie M Gustavson; Eric Wittbrodt; Adrian F Hernandez; Alastair M Gray; Rury R Holman
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 5.602

3.  Coronary calcium scoring as first-line test to detect and exclude coronary artery disease in patients presenting to the general practitioner with stable chest pain: protocol of the cluster-randomised CONCRETE trial.

Authors:  Moniek Y Koopman; Jorn J W Reijnders; Robert T A Willemsen; Rykel van Bruggen; Carine J M Doggen; Bas Kietselaer; Martijn J Oude Wolcherink; Peter M A van Ooijen; Jan Willem C Gratama; Richard Braam; Matthijs Oudkerk; Pim van der Harst; Geert-Jan Dinant; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-19       Impact factor: 3.006

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.