Methods for estimating subgroup effects in cost-effectiveness analyses that use observational data

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 750-763

  Kreif, Noemi ^a   Grieve, Richard ^a   Radice, Rosalba ^a   Sadique, Zia ^a   Ramsahai, Roland ^a   Sekhon, Jasjeet S ^b  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness analysis; econometric methods; observational data; propensity scores; statistical methods; subgroup analysis

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR;

ALGORITHMS; AUTOMATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 84870524562     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12448929     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Vanness D, Mullahy J The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Jones AM, ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar ; 2006: 526-536.
2. Coyle D, Buxton MJ, O'Brien BJ. Stratified cost-effectiveness analysis: a framework for establishing efficient limited use criteria. Health Econ. 2003 ; 12 (5). 421-7
3. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008 ; 26 (9). 799-806
4. Koerkamp GB, Weinstein MC, Stijnen T, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MGM. Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30 (2). 194-205
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org. uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2010.
6. DeeksJJ. Evaluating Non-randomised Intervention Studies. Tunbridge Wells, UK: Gray Pub on behalf of NCCHTA; 2003. Available from: URL: http://www.hta.ac.uk/execsumm/summ727.htmAccessed 23 May 2009.
7. Rubin DB. On the limitations of comparative effectiveness research. Stat Med. 2010 ; 29: 1991-5
8. Basu A, Heckman JJ, Navarro-Lozano S, Urzua S. Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients. Health Econ. 2007 ; 16 (11). 1133-57
9. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream?. Epidemiology. 2006 ; 17 (4). 360-72
10. Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci. 1999 ; 14 (1). 29-46
11. Nixon RM, Thompson SG. Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. Health Econ. 2005 ; 14 (12). 1217-29
12. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ. 2004 ; 13 (5). 461-75
13. Kreif N, Grieve R, Sadique Z. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use observational data: a critical appraisal tool and review of current practice. Health Econ Lett. 2012 ;:
14. Grieve R, Sekhon JS, Hu T-W, Bloom J. Evaluating health care programs by combining cost with quality of life measures: a case study comparing capitation and fee for service. Health Serv Res. 2008 ; 43 (4). 1204-22
15. Thompson S, Nixon R. How sensitive are cost-effectiveness analyses to choice of parametric distributions?. Med Decis Making. 2005 ; 25: 416-23
16. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference political analysis.. 2007 ; 15 (3). 199-236
17. Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010 ; 25 (1). 1-21
18. Mitra N, Indurkhya A. A propensity score approach to estimating the cost-effectiveness of medical therapies from observational data. Health Econ. 2005 ; 14 (8). 805-15
19. Pullenayegum EM, Willan AR. Marginal models for censored longitudinal cost data: appropriate working variance matrices in inverse-probability-weighted GEEs can improve precision. Int J Biostat. 2011 ; 7 (1). 1-27
20. Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Making. 2009 ; 29 (6). 661-77
21. Hirano K, Imbens GW, Ridder G. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica. 2003 ; 71 (4). 1161-89
22. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008 ; 168 (6). 656-64
23. Sekhon JS, Grieve RD. A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost-effectiveness analyses. Health Econ. 2012 ; 21 (6). 695-714
24. DiamondASekhonJS. Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. 2010. Available from: URL: http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/papers/GenMatch. pdf. Accessed 17 March 2011.
25. Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, et al. Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2001 ; 344 (10). 699-709
26. Ely E, Laterre P, Angus D, et al. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) administration across clinically important subgroups of patients with severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2003 ; 31 (1). 12-9
27. Rowan K, Welch C, North E, Harrison D. Drotrecogin alfa (activated): real-life use and outcomes for the UK. Crit Care. 2008 ; 12 (2). R58
28. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2007 ; 26 (1). 20-36
29. Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2002 ; 11 (5). 415-30
30. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009 ; 28: 3083-107
31. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983 ; 70 (1). 41-55
32. Rubin D, Thomas N. Characterizing the effect of matching using linear propensity score methods with normal distributions. Biometrika. 1992 ; 79 (4). 797-809
33. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985 ; 39 (1). 33-8
34. Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med. 2008 ; 27 (12). 2037-49
35. Ramsahai R, Grieve R, Sekhon JS. Extending iterative matching methods: an approach to improving covariate balance that allows prioritisation. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2011 ; 11: 95-114
36. Sekhon JS. Matching multivariate and propensity score matching with automated balance search. J Stat Software.:
37. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica. 2006 ; 74 (1). 235-67
38. Basu A, Polsky D, Manning W. Estimating treatment effects on healthcare costs under exogeneity: is there a "magic bullet"?. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2011 ; 11 (1). 1-26
39. Kang JDY, Schafer JL. Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Stat Sci. 2007 ; 22 (4). 523-39
40. Polsky D, Basu A The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Jones AM, ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar ; 2006: 455-465.
41. Lee BK, Lessler J, Stuart EA. Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Stat Med. 2010 ; 29 (3). 337-46
42. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 ; 163 (12). 1149-56
43. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Technology Appraisal Guidance 84. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for severe sepsis. 2007. Available from: URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA84. Accessed 5 August 2011.
44. Abraham E, Laterre P, Garg R, et al. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis and a low risk of death. N Engl J Med. 2005 ; 353: 1332-41
45. Barton P, Kalil A, Nadel S, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in children with severe sepsis. Pediatrics. 2004 ; 113: 7-17
46. Silva E, de Figueiredo LFP, Colombari F. Prowess-Shock Trial: a protocol overview and perspectives. Shock. 2010 ; 34 (7). 48-53
47. Sadique MZ, Grieve R, Harrison D, Cuthbertson B, Rowan K. Is drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis, cost-effective in routine clinical practice?. Crit Care. 2011 ; 15 (5). R228
48. Davison A, Hinkley D New York: Cambridge University Press ; 1997:
49. Fenwick E, O'Brien B, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004 ; 13 (5). 405-15
50. Hill J, Reiter JP. Interval estimation for treatment effects using propensity score matching. Stat Med. 2005 ; 25 (13). 2230-56
51. Austin PC. Type I error rates, coverage of confidence intervals, and variance estimation in propensity-score matched analyses. Int J Biostat. 2009 ; 5 ( 1 ):
52. Trivedi PK, Zimmer DM Delft, the Netherlands: Now Publishing; ; 2005:
53. Mihaylova B, Briggs A, O'Hagan A, Thompson S. Review of statistical methods for analysing healthcare resources and costs. Health Econ. 2011 ; 20 (8). 897-916
54. QuinnC. The health-economic applications of copulas: methods in applied econometric research. HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York; 2007 (updated 8 October 2011). Available from: URL: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ yor/hectdg/07-22.html.
55. Espinoza MA, Manca A, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. The value of identifying heterogeneity: a framework for subgroup cost-effectiveness analysis. HESG Conference Presentation ; ;..
56. Briggs A Sculpher M Klaxton K, ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press ; 2006:
57. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Malchau H. The use of probabilistic decision models in technology assessment: the case of total hip replacement. Appl Health Econ Health Pol. 2004 ; 3 (2). 79-89
58. Terza JV, Basu A, Rathouz PJ. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. J Health Econ. 2008 ; 27 (3). 531-43
59. Grootendorst P. A review of instrumental variables estimation in the applied health sciences. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2007 ; 7 (3-4). 159-79
60. Basu A. Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care. J Health Econ. 2011 ; 30 (3). 549-59
61. Basu A. Individualization at the heart of comparative effectiveness research: the time for i-CER has come. Med Decis Making. 2009 ; 29 (6). N9 - N11
62. Imbens GM, Wooldridge JM. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit. 2009 ; 47 (1). 5-86
63. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat. 2011 ; 29 (1). 1-11
64. Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP. Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995 ; 90 (429). 106-21
65. Robins J, Sued M, Lei-Gomez Q, Rotnitzky A. Comment: performance of double-robust estimators when "inverse probability" weights are highly variable. Stat Sci. 2007 ; 22 (4). 544-59
66. van der Laan MJ, Gruber S. Collaborative double robust targeted maximum likelihood estimation. Int J Biostat. 2010 ; 6 ( 1 ):
67. Hirano K, Imbens GW. Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: an application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001 ; 2 (3). 259-78
68. Glynn AN, Quinn KM. An introduction to the augmented inverse propensity weighted estimator. Political Analysis. 2010 ; 18: 36-56
69. HartmanESekhonJS. Matching: Stata Version of Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software for Causal Inference. 2011. Available from: URL: http://ekhartman.berkeley.edu/stata/matching.html.