nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.03.2012 | Current Opinion

Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches

verfasst von: Dr Olivier Ethgen, Baudouin Standaert

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 3/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

While no single type of model can provide adequate answers under all circumstances, any modelling endeavour should incorporate three fundamental considerations in any decision-making question: the target population, the disease and the intervention characteristics.

A target population is likely to be characterized by various types of heterogeneity and a dynamic evolution over time. It is therefore important to adequately capture these population effects on the results of a model. There are essentially two different approaches in modelling a population over time: a cohort-based approach and a population-based approach.

In a cohort-based model, a closed group of individuals who have at least one specific characteristic or experience in common over a defined period of time is run through a state transition process. The cohort is generally composed of a hypothetical number of representative or ‘average’ individuals (i.e. the target population is considered to be a homogeneous group).

The population-based approach projects the evolution of the estimated prevalent target population and intends to reflect as much as possible the demographic, epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the prevalent target population relevant for the decision problem.

A cohort-based approach is generally used in most published healthcare decision models. However, this choice is rarely discussed by modellers. In this article, we challenge this assumption. To address the underlying decision problem, we affirm it is crucial that modellers consider the characteristics of the target population. Then, they could opt for using the most appropriate approach. Decision makers should also understand the impact on the results of both types of models in order to make informed healthcare decisions.

Brennan A, Akehurst R. Modelling in health economic evaluation. What is its place? What is its value? Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 445–59

Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 217–27PubMedCrossRef

Sun X, Faunce T. Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econ 2008; 9 (4): 313–23PubMedCrossRef

Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 461–77PubMedCrossRef

Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling: principles and practices–utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18 (1): 94–111PubMed

Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003; 6 (1): 9–17PubMedCrossRef

Kim SY, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes: a focused review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (3): 191–215PubMedCrossRef

Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006; 15 (12): 1295–310PubMedCrossRef

Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004; 9 (2): 110–8PubMedCrossRef

10.

Heeg BM, Damen J, Buskens E, et al. Modelling approaches: the case of schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 633–48PubMedCrossRef

11.

Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ 2003; 12 (10): 837–48PubMedCrossRef

12.

Simpson KN, Strassburger A, Jones WJ, et al. Comparison of Markov model and discrete-event simulation techniques for HIV. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (2): 159–65PubMedCrossRef

13.

Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (2): 131–48PubMedCrossRef

14.

Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479–500PubMedCrossRef

15.

Griffin S, Claxton K, Hawkins N, et al. Probabilistic analysis and computationally expensive models: Necessary and required? Value Health 2006; 9 (4): 244–52PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hoyle M, Anderson R. Whose costs and benefits? Why economic evaluations should simulate both prevalent and all future incident patient cohorts. Med Decis Making 2010; 30 (4): 426–37

17.

Kuntz KM, Fenwick E, Briggs A. Appropriate cohorts for cost-effectiveness analysis: to mix or not to mix? Med Decis Making 2010; 30 (4): 424–5PubMedCrossRef

18.

Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (4): 355–71PubMedCrossRef

19.

Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799–806PubMedCrossRef

20.

Kuntz KM, Goldie SJ. Assessing the sensitivity of decisionanalytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias. Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (3): 218–27PubMed

21.

Zaric GS. The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2003; 23 (5): 379–96PubMedCrossRef

22.

Mauskopf JA, Earnshaw S, Mullins CD. Budget impact analysis: review of the state of the art. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005; 5 (1): 65–79PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kuntz K, Weinstein M. Modelling in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care–from theory to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 141–71

24.

Mauskopf J. Meeting the NICE requirements: a Markov model approach. Value Health 2000; 3 (4): 287–93PubMedCrossRef

25.

Dewilde S, Anderson R. The cost-effectiveness of screening programs using single and multiple birth cohort simulations: a comparison using a model of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making 2004; 24 (5): 486–92PubMedCrossRef

26.

Standaert B, Demarteau N, Talbird S, et al. Modelling the effect of conjugate vaccines in pneumococcal disease: cohort or population models? Vaccine 2010; 28 Suppl. 6: G30–8CrossRef

27.

Vanness DJ, Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE, et al. The need for microsimulation to evaluate osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporos Int 2005; 16 (4): 353–8PubMedCrossRef

28.

Weinstein MC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1043–53PubMedCrossRef

29.

Hiligsmann M, Ethgen O, Bruyere O, et al. Development and validation of a Markov microsimulation model for the economic evaluation of treatments in osteoporosis. Value Health 2009; 12: 687–96PubMedCrossRef

30.

Coyle D, Buxton MJ, O’Brien BJ. Stratified costeffectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. Health Econ 2003; 12 (5): 421–7PubMedCrossRef

31.

Trusheim MR, Berndt ER, Douglas FL. Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007; 6 (4): 287–93PubMedCrossRef

32.

Salomon JA, Weinstein MC, Goldie SJ. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2004; 329 (7468): 733–6PubMedCrossRef

33.

Palmer S, Smith PC. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 2000; 19 (5): 755–66PubMedCrossRef

34.

Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S. The half-life of truth: what are appropriate time horizons for research decisions? Med Decis Making 2008; 28 (3): 287–99PubMedCrossRef

35.

Hoyle M. Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29 (1): 1–15PubMedCrossRef

36.

Beutels P, Van Doorslaer E, Van Damme P, et al. Methodological issues and new developments in the economic evaluation of vaccines. Expert Rev Vaccines 2003; 2 (5): 649–60PubMedCrossRef

37.

Edmunds WJ, Medley GF, Nokes DJ. Evaluating the costeffectiveness of vaccination programmes: a dynamic perspective. Stat Med 1999; 18 (23): 3263–82PubMedCrossRef

38.

Davies R, Roderick P, Reaftery J. The evaluation of disease prevention and treatment using simulation models. Eur J Operational Res 2003; 150: 53–166CrossRef

39.

Mauskopf J. Prevalence-based economic evaluation. Value Health 1998; 1 (4): 251–9PubMedCrossRef

40.

Auchincloss AH, Diez Roux AV. A new tool for epidemiology: the usefulness of dynamic-agent models in understanding place effects on health. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168 (1): 1–8PubMedCrossRef

41.

Cooper K, Brailsford S, Davies R. Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions. J Operational Res Soc 2007; 58: 168–76

Titel: Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches
verfasst von: Dr Olivier Ethgen
Baudouin Standaert
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2012
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11593050-000000000-00000

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2012

Rufinamide

Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands

Pricing Human Papillomavirus Vaccines

Common Drug Review Recommendations

Measuring Quality of Life in Patients with Schizophrenia

Contribution of Pharmaceutical Innovation to Longevity Growth in Germany and France, 2001–7