A Blueprint for Multi-use Disease Modeling in Health Economics: Results from Two Expert-Panel Consultations

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2024-04-13 DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01376-w
Junfeng Wang, Xavier Pouwels, Bram Ramaekers, Geert Frederix, Chris van Lieshout, Rudolf Hoogenveen, Xinyu Li, G. Ardine de Wit, Manuela Joore, Hendrik Koffijberg, Anoukh van Giessen, Saskia Knies, Talitha Feenstra
{"title":"A Blueprint for Multi-use Disease Modeling in Health Economics: Results from Two Expert-Panel Consultations","authors":"Junfeng Wang, Xavier Pouwels, Bram Ramaekers, Geert Frederix, Chris van Lieshout, Rudolf Hoogenveen, Xinyu Li, G. Ardine de Wit, Manuela Joore, Hendrik Koffijberg, Anoukh van Giessen, Saskia Knies, Talitha Feenstra","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01376-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>The current use of health economic decision models in HTA is mostly confined to single use cases, which may be inefficient and result in little consistency over different treatment comparisons, and consequently inconsistent health policy decisions, for the same disorder. Multi-use disease models (MUDMs) (other terms: generic models, whole disease models, disease models) may offer a solution. However, much is uncertain about their definition and application. The current research aimed to develop a blueprint for the application of MUDMs.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We elicited expert opinion using a two-round modified Delphi process. The panel consisted of experts and stakeholders in health economic modelling from various professional backgrounds. The first questionnaire concerned definition, terminology, potential applications, issues and recommendations for MUDMs and was based on an exploratory scoping review. In the second round, the panel members were asked to reconsider their input, based on feedback regarding first-round results, and to score issues and recommendations for priority. Finally, adding input from external advisors and policy makers in a structured way, an overview of issues and challenges was developed during two team consensus meetings.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>In total, 54 respondents contributed to the panel results. The term ‘multi-use disease models’ was proposed and agreed upon, and a definition was provided. The panel prioritized 10 potential applications (with <i>comparing alternative policies</i> and <i>supporting resource allocation decisions</i> as the top 2), while 20 issues (with <i>model transparency</i> and <i>stakeholders’ roles</i> as the top 2) were identified as challenges. Opinions on potential features concerning operationalization of multi-use models were given, with 11 of these subsequently receiving high priority scores (<i>regular updates</i> and <i>revalidation after updates</i> were the top 2).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>MUDMs would improve on current decision support regarding cost-effectiveness information. Given feasibility challenges, this would be most relevant for diseases with multiple treatments, large burden of disease and requiring more complex models. The current overview offers policy makers a starting point to organize the development, use, and maintenance of MUDMs and to support choices concerning which diseases and policy decisions they will be helpful for.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01376-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The current use of health economic decision models in HTA is mostly confined to single use cases, which may be inefficient and result in little consistency over different treatment comparisons, and consequently inconsistent health policy decisions, for the same disorder. Multi-use disease models (MUDMs) (other terms: generic models, whole disease models, disease models) may offer a solution. However, much is uncertain about their definition and application. The current research aimed to develop a blueprint for the application of MUDMs.

Methods

We elicited expert opinion using a two-round modified Delphi process. The panel consisted of experts and stakeholders in health economic modelling from various professional backgrounds. The first questionnaire concerned definition, terminology, potential applications, issues and recommendations for MUDMs and was based on an exploratory scoping review. In the second round, the panel members were asked to reconsider their input, based on feedback regarding first-round results, and to score issues and recommendations for priority. Finally, adding input from external advisors and policy makers in a structured way, an overview of issues and challenges was developed during two team consensus meetings.

Results

In total, 54 respondents contributed to the panel results. The term ‘multi-use disease models’ was proposed and agreed upon, and a definition was provided. The panel prioritized 10 potential applications (with comparing alternative policies and supporting resource allocation decisions as the top 2), while 20 issues (with model transparency and stakeholders’ roles as the top 2) were identified as challenges. Opinions on potential features concerning operationalization of multi-use models were given, with 11 of these subsequently receiving high priority scores (regular updates and revalidation after updates were the top 2).

Conclusions

MUDMs would improve on current decision support regarding cost-effectiveness information. Given feasibility challenges, this would be most relevant for diseases with multiple treatments, large burden of disease and requiring more complex models. The current overview offers policy makers a starting point to organize the development, use, and maintenance of MUDMs and to support choices concerning which diseases and policy decisions they will be helpful for.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卫生经济学中的多用途疾病模型蓝图:两次专家小组咨询的结果
背景目前在 HTA 中使用的卫生经济决策模型大多局限于单一用途病例,这可能效率低下,并导致不同治疗方法比较的一致性不高,从而导致针对相同疾病的卫生政策决定不一致。多用途疾病模型(MUDMs)(其他术语:通用模型、整体疾病模型、疾病模型)可能提供了一种解决方案。然而,关于其定义和应用还有很多不确定因素。目前的研究旨在为多用途疾病模型的应用绘制蓝图。方法我们采用两轮改良德尔菲程序征求专家意见。专家小组由来自不同专业背景的卫生经济建模专家和利益相关者组成。第一轮问卷涉及 MUDMs 的定义、术语、潜在应用、问题和建议,以探索性范围审查为基础。在第二轮调查中,小组成员被要求根据对第一轮调查结果的反馈,重新考虑他们的意见,并对问题和建议的优先级进行评分。最后,在两次团队共识会议上,以结构化的方式添加了外部顾问和决策者的意见,并对问题和挑战进行了概述。提出并商定了 "多用途疾病模型 "一词,并给出了定义。小组优先考虑了 10 项潜在应用(其中比较替代政策和支持资源分配决策是前两项),同时确定了 20 个问题(其中模型透明度和利益相关者的角色是前两项)作为挑战。对有关多用途模型可操作性的潜在特征提出了意见,其中 11 项随后获得了高优先级评分(定期更新和更新后重新验证是前两项)。考虑到可行性方面的挑战,这对于有多种治疗方法、疾病负担大且需要更复杂模型的疾病最有意义。目前的概述为政策制定者提供了一个起点,以组织开发、使用和维护 MUDMs,并支持选择它们将有助于哪些疾病和政策决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
期刊最新文献
Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis: An Updated Systematic Literature Review. Effects and Costs of Hepatitis C Virus Elimination for the Whole Population in China: A Modelling Study. MPES-R: Multi-Parameter Evidence Synthesis in R for Survival Extrapolation-A Tutorial. Different Models, Same Results: Considerations When Choosing Between Approaches to Model Cost Effectiveness of Chimeric-Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care. Evidence Following Conditional NICE Technology Appraisal Recommendations: A Critical Analysis of Methods, Quality and Risk of Bias.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1