Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A comparison of partitioned survival analysis and state transition multi-state modelling approaches using a case study in oncology.
Cranmer, Holly; Shields, Gemma E; Bullement, Ash.
Affiliation
  • Cranmer H; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., London, UK.
  • Shields GE; Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • Bullement A; Delta Hat Limited, Nottingham, UK.
J Med Econ ; 23(10): 1176-1185, 2020 Oct.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32673128
ABSTRACT

AIMS:

To construct and compare a partitioned-survival analysis (PartSA) and a semi-Markov multi-state model (MSM) to investigate differences in estimated cost effectiveness of a novel cancer treatment from a UK perspective. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Data from a cohort of late-stage cancer patients (N > 700) enrolled within a randomized, controlled trial were used to populate both modelling approaches. The statistical software R was used to fit parametric survival models to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data to inform the PartSA (package "flexsurv"). The package "mstate" was used to estimate the MSM transitions (permitted transitions (T1) "progression-free" to "dead", (T2) "post-progression" to "death", and (T3) "pre-progression" to "post-progression"). Key costs included were treatment-related (initial, subsequent, and concomitant), adverse events, hospitalizations and monitoring. Utilities were stratified by progression. Outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum over a 15-year time horizon.

RESULTS:

The PartSA and MSM approaches estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £342,474 and £411,574, respectively. Scenario analyses exploring alternative parametric forms provided incremental discounted life-year estimates that ranged from +0.15 to +0.33 for the PartSA approach, compared with -0.13 to +0.23 for the MSM approach. This variation was reflected in the range of ICERs. The PartSA produced ICERs between £234,829 and £522,963, whereas MSM results were more variable and included instances where the intervention was dominated and ICERs above £7 million (caused by very small incremental QALYs). LIMITATIONS AND

CONCLUSIONS:

Structural uncertainty in economic modelling is rarely explored due to time and resource limitations. This comparison of structural approaches indicates that the choice of structure may have a profound impact on cost-effectiveness results. This highlights the importance of carefully considered model conceptualization, and the need for further research to ascertain when it may be most appropriate to use each approach.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Survival Analysis / Models, Economic / Neoplasms Type of study: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Med Econ Journal subject: SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United kingdom Publication country: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Survival Analysis / Models, Economic / Neoplasms Type of study: Clinical_trials / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Aspects: Patient_preference Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Med Econ Journal subject: SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United kingdom Publication country: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM