Population-versus cohort-based modelling approaches

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 171-181

  Ethgen, Olivier ^a,b   Standaert, Baudouin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^b GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Decision analysis; Modelling

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COHORT ANALYSIS; COHORT BASED MODEL; EVALUATION; HUMAN; MODEL; MULTI COHORT APPROACH; POPULATION BASED MODEL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

COHORT STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84857341848     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11593050-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Brennan A, Akehurst R. Modelling in health economic evaluation. What is its place? What is its value? Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 445-59 (Pubitemid 30398804)
2. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 217-27 (Pubitemid 27296586)
3. Sun X, Faunce T. Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econ 2008; 9 (4): 313-23
4. 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): 461-77 (Pubitemid 30398805)
5. 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): 94-111 (Pubitemid 34408532)
6. 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): 9-17 (Pubitemid 36228345)
7. Kim SY, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes: a focused review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (3): 191-215 (Pubitemid 351271379)
8. Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006; 15 (12): 1295-310 (Pubitemid 44941606)
9. 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): 110-8 (Pubitemid 38568540)
10. Heeg BM, Damen J, Buskens E, et al. Modelling approaches: the case of schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 633-48 (Pubitemid 351989056)
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): 837-48 (Pubitemid 37220634)
12. Simpson KN, Strassburger A, Jones WJ, et al. Comparison of Markov model and discrete-event simulation techniques for HIV. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (2): 159-65
13. Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (2): 131-48
14. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479-500 (Pubitemid 30398806)
15. Griffin S, Claxton K, Hawkins N, et al. Probabilistic analysis and computationally expensive models: Necessary and required? Value Health 2006; 9 (4): 244-52
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): 424-5
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): 355-71
19. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 799-806
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): 218-27 (Pubitemid 34535321)
21. Zaric GS. The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2003; 23 (5): 379-96 (Pubitemid 37173423)
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): 65-79 (Pubitemid 40590125)
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): 287-93
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): 486-92 (Pubitemid 39223701)
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: G30-8
27. Vanness DJ, Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE, et al. The need for microsimulation to evaluate osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporos Int 2005; 16 (4): 353-8 (Pubitemid 40487392)
28. Weinstein MC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1043-53 (Pubitemid 44683362)
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: 687-96
30. Coyle D, Buxton MJ, O'Brien BJ. Stratified costeffectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. Health Econ 2003; 12 (5): 421-7 (Pubitemid 36603553)
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): 287-93 (Pubitemid 46505879)
32. Salomon JA, Weinstein MC, Goldie SJ. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2004; 329 (7468): 733-6 (Pubitemid 39312701)
33. Palmer S, Smith PC. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 2000; 19 (5): 755-66
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): 287-99 (Pubitemid 351713302)
35. Hoyle M. Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29 (1): 1-15
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): 649-60 (Pubitemid 37295363)
37. Edmunds WJ, Medley GF, Nokes DJ. Evaluating the costeffectiveness of vaccination programmes: a dynamic perspective. Stat Med 1999; 18 (23): 3263-82
38. Davies R, Roderick P, Reaftery J. The evaluation of disease prevention and treatment using simulation models. Eur J Operational Res 2003; 150: 53-166
39. Mauskopf J. Prevalence-based economic evaluation. Value Health 1998; 1 (4): 251-9 (Pubitemid 128499448)
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): 1-8 (Pubitemid 351881895)
41. Cooper K, Brailsford S, Davies R. Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions. J Operational Res Soc 2007; 58: 168-76 (Pubitemid 46224660)