Literature DB >> 33215693

Estimating the optimal individualized treatment rule from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Yizhe Xu1, Tom H Greene1,2,3, Adam P Bress1, Brian C Sauer1,3,4, Brandon K Bellows5, Yue Zhang1,2,3, William S Weintraub6, Andrew E Moran5, Jincheng Shen1,2,3.   

Abstract

Optimal individualized treatment rules (ITRs) provide customized treatment recommendations based on subject characteristics to maximize clinical benefit in accordance with the objectives in precision medicine. As a result, there is growing interest in developing statistical tools for estimating optimal ITRs in evidence-based research. In health economic perspectives, policy makers consider the tradeoff between health gains and incremental costs of interventions to set priorities and allocate resources. However, most work on ITRs has focused on maximizing the effectiveness of treatment without considering costs. In this paper, we jointly consider the impact of effectiveness and cost on treatment decisions and define ITRs under a composite-outcome setting, so that we identify the most cost-effective ITR that accounts for individual-level heterogeneity through direct optimization. In particular, we propose a decision-tree-based statistical learning algorithm that uses a net-monetary-benefit-based reward to provide nonparametric estimations of the optimal ITR. We provide several approaches to estimating the reward underlying the ITR as a function of subject characteristics. We present the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and provide practical guidelines by comparing their performance in simulation studies. We illustrate the top-performing approach from our simulations by evaluating the projected 15-year personalized cost-effectiveness of the intensive blood pressure control of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) study.
© 2020 The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost-effectiveness; decision-tree-based statistical learning algorithm; direct optimization; individual-level heterogeneity; individualized treatment rules; net-monetary-benefit-based reward

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33215693      PMCID: PMC8134511          DOI: 10.1111/biom.13406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  44 in total

1.  How sensitive are cost-effectiveness analyses to choice of parametric distributions?

Authors:  Simon G Thompson; Richard M Nixon
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Cost-effectiveness of 10-Year Risk Thresholds for Initiation of Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors:  Ankur Pandya; Stephen Sy; Sylvia Cho; Milton C Weinstein; Thomas A Gaziano
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Heart disease and stroke statistics--2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Joshua Z Willey; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Using microsimulation models to inform U.S. health policy making.

Authors:  Jean Marie Abraham
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Cost-effectiveness of hypertension therapy according to 2014 guidelines.

Authors:  Andrew E Moran; Michelle C Odden; Anusorn Thanataveerat; Keane Y Tzong; Petra W Rasmussen; David Guzman; Lawrence Williams; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Pamela G Coxson; Lee Goldman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Double inverse-weighted estimation of cumulative treatment effects under nonproportional hazards and dependent censoring.

Authors:  Douglas E Schaubel; Guanghui Wei
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Estimating the Optimal Personalized Treatment Strategy Based on Selected Variables to Prolong Survival via Random Survival Forest with Weighted Bootstrap.

Authors:  Jincheng Shen; Lu Wang; Stephanie Daignault; Daniel E Spratt; Todd M Morgan; Jeremy M G Taylor
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 1.051

8.  Learning Optimal Personalized Treatment Rules in Consideration of Benefit and Risk: with an Application to Treating Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Insulin Therapies.

Authors:  Yuanjia Wang; Haoda Fu; Donglin Zeng
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 5.033

9.  Estimating Individualized Treatment Rules Using Outcome Weighted Learning.

Authors:  Yingqi Zhao; Donglin Zeng; A John Rush; Michael R Kosorok
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 10.  On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Cameron; Jasper Ubels; Fredrik Norström
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 2.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.