Ron Handels PhD , William L. Herring PhD , Farzam Kamgar MSc , Sandar Aye MSc , Ashley Tate PhD , Colin Green PhD , Anders Gustavsson PhD , Anders Wimo MD, PhD , Bengt Winblad MD, PhD , Anders Sköldunger PhD , Lars Lau Raket PhD , Chelsea Bedrejo Stellick MSc , Eldon Spackman PhD , Jakub Hlávka PhD , Yifan Wei PhD , Javier Mar PhD , Myriam Soto-Gordoa PhD , Inge de Kok PhD , Chiara Brück PhD , Robert Anderson MA , Linus Jönsson MD, PhD
{"title":"IPECAD Modeling Workshop 2023 Cross-Comparison Challenge on Cost-Effectiveness Models in Alzheimer’s Disease","authors":"Ron Handels PhD , William L. Herring PhD , Farzam Kamgar MSc , Sandar Aye MSc , Ashley Tate PhD , Colin Green PhD , Anders Gustavsson PhD , Anders Wimo MD, PhD , Bengt Winblad MD, PhD , Anders Sköldunger PhD , Lars Lau Raket PhD , Chelsea Bedrejo Stellick MSc , Eldon Spackman PhD , Jakub Hlávka PhD , Yifan Wei PhD , Javier Mar PhD , Myriam Soto-Gordoa PhD , Inge de Kok PhD , Chiara Brück PhD , Robert Anderson MA , Linus Jönsson MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Decision-analytic models assessing the value of emerging Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments are challenged by limited evidence on short-term trial outcomes and uncertainty in extrapolating long-term patient-relevant outcomes. To improve understanding and foster transparency and credibility in modeling methods, we cross-compared AD decision models in a hypothetical context of disease-modifying treatment for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A benchmark scenario (US setting) was used with target population MCI due to AD and a set of synthetically generated hypothetical trial efficacy estimates. Treatment costs were excluded. Model predictions (10-year horizon) were assessed and discussed during a 2-day workshop.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Nine modeling groups provided model predictions. Implementation of treatment effectiveness varied across models based on trial efficacy outcome selection (clinical dementia rating – sum of boxes, clinical dementia rating – global, mini-mental state examination, functional activities questionnaire) and analysis method (observed severity transitions, change from baseline, progression hazard ratio, or calibration to these). Predicted mean time in MCI ranged from 2.6 to 5.2 years for control strategy and from 0.1 to 1.0 years for difference between intervention and control strategies. Predicted quality-adjusted life-year gains ranged from 0.0 to 0.6 and incremental costs (excluding treatment costs) from −US$66 897 to US$11 896.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Trial data can be implemented in different ways across health-economic models leading to large variation in model predictions. We recommend (1) addressing the choice of outcome measure and treatment effectiveness assumptions in sensitivity analysis, (2) a standardized reporting table for model predictions, and (3) exploring the use of registries for future AD treatments measuring long-term disease progression to reduce uncertainty of extrapolating short-term trial results by health-economic models.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 4","pages":"Pages 497-510"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524028572","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
Decision-analytic models assessing the value of emerging Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments are challenged by limited evidence on short-term trial outcomes and uncertainty in extrapolating long-term patient-relevant outcomes. To improve understanding and foster transparency and credibility in modeling methods, we cross-compared AD decision models in a hypothetical context of disease-modifying treatment for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD.
Methods
A benchmark scenario (US setting) was used with target population MCI due to AD and a set of synthetically generated hypothetical trial efficacy estimates. Treatment costs were excluded. Model predictions (10-year horizon) were assessed and discussed during a 2-day workshop.
Results
Nine modeling groups provided model predictions. Implementation of treatment effectiveness varied across models based on trial efficacy outcome selection (clinical dementia rating – sum of boxes, clinical dementia rating – global, mini-mental state examination, functional activities questionnaire) and analysis method (observed severity transitions, change from baseline, progression hazard ratio, or calibration to these). Predicted mean time in MCI ranged from 2.6 to 5.2 years for control strategy and from 0.1 to 1.0 years for difference between intervention and control strategies. Predicted quality-adjusted life-year gains ranged from 0.0 to 0.6 and incremental costs (excluding treatment costs) from −US$66 897 to US$11 896.
Conclusions
Trial data can be implemented in different ways across health-economic models leading to large variation in model predictions. We recommend (1) addressing the choice of outcome measure and treatment effectiveness assumptions in sensitivity analysis, (2) a standardized reporting table for model predictions, and (3) exploring the use of registries for future AD treatments measuring long-term disease progression to reduce uncertainty of extrapolating short-term trial results by health-economic models.
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.