Examining the Impact of Structural Uncertainty Across 10 Type 2 Diabetes Models: Results From the 2022 Mount Hood Challenge.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.010
James Altunkaya, Xinyu Li, Amanda Adler, Talitha Feenstra, Adam Fridhammar, Mi Jun Keng, Mark Lamotte, Phil McEwan, Andreas Nilsson, Andrew J Palmer, Jianchao Quan, Harry Smolen, An Tran-Duy, William Valentine, Michael Willis, José Leal, Philip Clarke
{"title":"Examining the Impact of Structural Uncertainty Across 10 Type 2 Diabetes Models: Results From the 2022 Mount Hood Challenge.","authors":"James Altunkaya, Xinyu Li, Amanda Adler, Talitha Feenstra, Adam Fridhammar, Mi Jun Keng, Mark Lamotte, Phil McEwan, Andreas Nilsson, Andrew J Palmer, Jianchao Quan, Harry Smolen, An Tran-Duy, William Valentine, Michael Willis, José Leal, Philip Clarke","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge Network aimed to examine the impact of model structural uncertainty on the estimated cost-effectiveness of interventions for type 2 diabetes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten independent modeling groups completed a blinded simulation exercise to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 3 interventions in 2 type 2 diabetes populations. Modeling groups were provided with a common baseline population, cost and utility values associated with different model health states, and instructions regarding time horizon and discounting. We collated the results to identify variation in predictions of net monetary benefit (NMB) and the drivers of those differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, modeling groups agreed which interventions had a positive NMB (ie, were cost-effective), Although estimates of NMB varied substantially-by up to £23 696 for 1 intervention. Variation was mainly driven through differences in risk equations for complications of diabetes and their implementation between models. The number of modeled health states was also a significant predictor of NMB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This exercise demonstrates that structural uncertainty between different health economic models affects cost-effectiveness estimates. Although it is reassuring that a decision maker would likely reach similar conclusions on which interventions were cost-effective using most models, the range in numerical estimates generated across different models would nevertheless be important for price-setting negotiations with intervention developers. Minimizing the impact of structural uncertainty on healthcare decision making therefore remains an important priority. Model registries, which record and compare the impact of structural assumptions, offer one potential avenue to improve confidence in the robustness of health economic modeling.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.010","RegionNum":2,"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

Objectives: The Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge Network aimed to examine the impact of model structural uncertainty on the estimated cost-effectiveness of interventions for type 2 diabetes.

Methods: Ten independent modeling groups completed a blinded simulation exercise to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 3 interventions in 2 type 2 diabetes populations. Modeling groups were provided with a common baseline population, cost and utility values associated with different model health states, and instructions regarding time horizon and discounting. We collated the results to identify variation in predictions of net monetary benefit (NMB) and the drivers of those differences.

Results: Overall, modeling groups agreed which interventions had a positive NMB (ie, were cost-effective), Although estimates of NMB varied substantially-by up to £23 696 for 1 intervention. Variation was mainly driven through differences in risk equations for complications of diabetes and their implementation between models. The number of modeled health states was also a significant predictor of NMB.

Conclusions: This exercise demonstrates that structural uncertainty between different health economic models affects cost-effectiveness estimates. Although it is reassuring that a decision maker would likely reach similar conclusions on which interventions were cost-effective using most models, the range in numerical estimates generated across different models would nevertheless be important for price-setting negotiations with intervention developers. Minimizing the impact of structural uncertainty on healthcare decision making therefore remains an important priority. Model registries, which record and compare the impact of structural assumptions, offer one potential avenue to improve confidence in the robustness of health economic modeling.

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
研究结构不确定性对十种 2 型糖尿病模型的影响:2022 年胡德山挑战赛的结果。
目标胡德山糖尿病挑战网络旨在研究模型结构不确定性对 2 型糖尿病干预措施成本效益估算的影响:方法:十个独立建模小组完成了一项盲法模拟活动,以估算两种 2 型糖尿病人群中三种干预措施的成本效益。模拟小组获得了共同的基线人群、与不同模型健康状态相关的成本和效用值,以及有关时间跨度和贴现的说明。我们对结果进行了整理,以确定净货币收益(NMB)预测中的差异,以及造成这些差异的原因:结果:总体而言,建模小组一致认为哪些干预措施具有正的净货币效益(即具有成本效益),但对净货币效益的估计差异很大--一项干预措施的差异高达 23,696 英镑。造成差异的主要原因是糖尿病并发症的风险方程及其在不同模型中的执行情况不同。建模健康状态的数量也是预测净投注额的一个重要因素:这项研究表明,不同健康经济模型之间的结构不确定性会影响成本效益估算。令人欣慰的是,决策者可能会通过大多数模型就哪些干预措施具有成本效益得出相似的结论,但不同模型得出的数值估计范围对于与干预措施开发商进行定价谈判非常重要。因此,最大限度地减少结构不确定性对医疗决策的影响仍然是一个重要的优先事项。模型注册可记录和比较结构假设的影响,为提高人们对卫生经济模型稳健性的信心提供了一个潜在的途径。
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
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials with External Controls from Real-World Data: a Systematic Literature Review and Comparison to European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Author Reply to "Cost-of/Burden-of-Illness Studies: Steps Backward?" Author Reply. Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
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