IPECAD Modeling Workshop 2023 Cross-Comparison Challenge on Cost-Effectiveness Models in Alzheimer's Disease.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.006
Ron Handels, William L Herring, Farzam Kamgar, Sandar Aye, Ashley Tate, Colin Green, Anders Gustavsson, Anders Wimo, Bengt Winblad, Anders Sköldunger, Lars Lau Raket, Chelsea Bedrejo Stellick, Eldon Spackman, Jakub Hlávka, Yifan Wei, Javier Mar, Myriam Soto-Gordoa, Inge de Kok, Chiara Brück, Robert Anderson, Peter Pemberton-Ross, Michael Urbich, Linus Jönsson
{"title":"IPECAD Modeling Workshop 2023 Cross-Comparison Challenge on Cost-Effectiveness Models in Alzheimer's Disease.","authors":"Ron Handels, William L Herring, Farzam Kamgar, Sandar Aye, Ashley Tate, Colin Green, Anders Gustavsson, Anders Wimo, Bengt Winblad, Anders Sköldunger, Lars Lau Raket, Chelsea Bedrejo Stellick, Eldon Spackman, Jakub Hlávka, Yifan Wei, Javier Mar, Myriam Soto-Gordoa, Inge de Kok, Chiara Brück, Robert Anderson, Peter Pemberton-Ross, Michael Urbich, Linus Jönsson","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.006","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.

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
IPECAD 2023 年阿尔茨海默病成本效益模型交叉比较挑战研讨会。
目的:评估阿尔茨海默病(AD)新兴治疗方法价值的决策分析模型面临着短期试验结果证据有限和长期患者相关结果推断不确定的挑战。为了加深理解并提高建模方法的透明度和可信度,我们交叉比较了在因阿兹海默症导致轻度认知障碍(MCI)的疾病修饰治疗假设背景下的阿兹海默症决策模型:方法:我们使用了一个基准情景(美国环境),目标人群为注意力缺失症引起的 MCI,并使用了一组综合生成的假设试验疗效估计值。不包括治疗费用。在为期两天的研讨会上对模型预测(10 年期)进行了评估和讨论:九个建模小组提供了模型预测。根据试验疗效结果选择(CDR-SB、CDR-global、MMSE、FAQ)和分析方法(观察到的严重程度转换、自基线的变化、进展危险比或对这些结果的校准),各模型对治疗效果的实施各不相同。对照策略的 MCI 预测平均时间为 2.6-5.2 年,干预策略与对照策略的差异为 0.1-1.0 年。预测的质量调整生命年收益从0.0-0.6不等,增量成本(不包括治疗成本)从-66,897美元到11,896美元不等:在不同的健康经济模型中,试验数据的应用方式可能不同,从而导致模型预测结果的巨大差异。我们建议:1)在敏感性分析中解决结果测量和治疗效果假设的选择问题;2)为模型预测制定标准化报告表;3)探索使用登记册对未来的 AD 治疗进行长期疾病进展测量,以减少健康经济模型推断短期试验结果的不确定性。
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
Value Attribution for Combination Treatments: Two Potential Solutions for an Insoluble Problem. Evaluating the health and economic impacts of return-to-work interventions: a modelling study. Exploring social preferences for health and wellbeing across the digital divide. A qualitative investigation based on tasks taken from an online discrete choice experiment. Quantifying low-value care in Germany: An observational study using statutory health insurance data from 2018 to 2021. Indirect Costs of Alzheimer's Disease: Unpaid Caregiver Burden and Patient Productivity Loss.
×
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