Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We discuss tradeoffs and errors associated with approaches to modeling health economic decisions. Through an application in pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing to guide drug selection for individuals with a genetic variant, we assessed model accuracy, optimal decisions, and computation time for an identical decision scenario modeled 4 ways: using 1) coupled-time differential equations (DEQ), 2) a cohort-based discrete-time state transition model (MARKOV), 3) an individual discrete-time state transition microsimulation model (MICROSIM), and 4) discrete event simulation (DES). Relative to DEQ, the net monetary benefit for PGx testing (v. a reference strategy of no testing) based on MARKOV with rate-to-probability conversions using commonly used formulas resulted in different optimal decisions. MARKOV was nearly identical to DEQ when transition probabilities were embedded using a transition intensity matrix. Among stochastic models, DES model outputs converged to DEQ with substantially fewer simulated patients (1 million) v. MICROSIM (1 billion). Overall, properly embedded Markov models provided the most favorable mix of accuracy and runtime but introduced additional complexity for calculating cost and quality-adjusted life year outcomes due to the inclusion of “jumpover” states after proper embedding of transition probabilities. Among stochastic models, DES offered the most favorable mix of accuracy, reliability, and speed.

Keywords

decision modeling pharmacogenomics health economic methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brennan

Chick

Davies

. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15(12):1295–310.

Caro

. Discretely integrated condition event (DICE) simulation for pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(7):665–72.

Karnon

. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):837–48.

Rutter

Zaslavsky

Feuer

. Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):10–8.

Stahl

. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(2):131–48.

Caro

Möller

. Advantages and disadvantages of discrete-event simulation for health economic analyses. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(3):327–9.

Drummond

Sculpher

Claxton

Stoddart

Torrance

. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Neumann

Sanders

Russell

Siegel

Ganiats

. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2016.

Siebert

Alagoz

Bayoumi

, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–3. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):690–700.

10.

Baltussen

Marsh

Thokala

, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: benefits, limitations, and the way forward. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1283–9.

11.

Baltussen

Niessen

. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4(1):14.

12.

Peacock

Mitton

Bate

McCoy

Donaldson

. Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy. 2009;92(2–3):124–32.

13.

Thokala

Duenas

. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–81.

14.

Karnon

Stahl

Brennan

Caro

Mar

Möller

. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–4. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):701–11.

15.

Standfield

Comans

Scuffham

. Markov modeling and discrete event simulation in health care: a systematic comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):165–72.

16.

Jacobson

Hall

Swisher

. Discrete-event simulation of health care systems. In: Hall

ed. Patient Flow: Reducing Delay in Healthcare Delivery. New York, NY: Springer; 2006.

17.

Graves

Zhou

Garbett

Peterson

. The value of pharmacogenomic information. In: Berndt

Goldman

Rowe

, eds. Economic Dimensions of Personalized and Precision Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Briggs

. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006.

19.

Briggs

Weinstein

Fenwick

Karnon

Sculpher

Paltiel

. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group–6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722–32.

20.

Campbell

McQueen

Libby

Spackman

Carlson

Briggs

. Cost-effectiveness uncertainty analysis methods: a comparison of one-way sensitivity, analysis of covariance, and expected value of partial perfect information. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(5):596–607.

21.

Claxton

Sculpher

. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–68.

22.

Jalal

Goldhaber-Fiebert

Kuntz

. Computing expected value of partial sample information from probabilistic sensitivity analysis using linear regression metamodeling. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(5):584–95.

23.

Jalal

Alarid-Escudero

. A Gaussian approximation approach for value of information analysis. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(2):174–88.

24.

Barendregt

. The half-cycle correction: banish rather than explain it. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(4):500–2.

25.

Jahn

Kurzthaler

Chhatwal

, et al. Alternative conversion methods for transition probabilities in state-transition models: validity and impact on comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(5):509–22.

26.

Jones

Epstein

García-Mochón

. A procedure for deriving formulas to convert transition rates to probabilities for multistate Markov models. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(7):779–89.

27.

O’Mahony

Newall

van Rosmalen

. Dealing with time in health economic evaluation: methodological issues and recommendations for practice. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(12):1255–68.

28.

Welton

Ades

. Estimation of Markov chain transition probabilities and rates from fully and partially observed data: uncertainty propagation, evidence synthesis, and model calibration. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(6):633–45.

29.

Iskandar

. A theoretical foundation for state-transition cohort models in health decision analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0205543.

30.

Chhatwal

Jayasuriya

Elbasha

. Changing cycle lengths in state-transition models: challenges and solutions. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(8):952–64.

31.

Tricker

. Effects of rounding on the moments of a probability distribution. Statistician. 1984;33(4):381–90.

32.

Shechter

Schaefer

Braithwaite

Roberts

. Increasing the efficiency of Monte Carlo cohort simulations with variance reduction techniques. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(5):550–3.

33.

Stout

Goldie

. Keeping the noise down: common random numbers for disease simulation modeling. Health Care Manage Sci. 2008;11(4):399–406.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.08 MB

Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material