Handels, Ron, Herring, William L., Kamgar, Farzam, Aye, Sandar, Tate, Ashley, Green, Colin, Gustavsson, Anders, Wimo, Anders, Winblad, Bengt, Sköldunger, Anders, Raket, Lars Lau, Stellick, Chelsea Bedrejo, Spackman, Eldon, Hlávka, Jakub, Wei, Yifan, Mar, Javier, Soto-Gordoa, Myriam, de Kok, Inge, Brück, Chiara, Anderson, Robert, Pemberton-Ross, Peter, Urbich, Michael and Jönsson, Linus (2024) IPECAD modeling workshop 2023 cross-comparison challenge on cost-effectiveness models in Alzheimer's Disease. Value in Health. ISSN 1098-3015 (In Press)
Full text not available from this repository.Abstract
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. 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. Nine modeling groups provided model predictions. Implementation of treatment effectiveness varied across models based on trial efficacy outcome selection (CDR-SB, CDR-global, MMSE, FAQ) and analysis method (observed severity transitions, change from baseline, progression hazard ratio, or calibration to these). Predicted mean time in MCI ranged from 2.6-5.2 years for control strategy, and from 0.1-1.0 years for difference between intervention and control strategies. Predicted quality-adjusted life-year gains ranged from 0.0-0.6 and incremental costs (excluding treatment costs) from -US$66,897 to US$11,896. 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. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.]
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | © 2024 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc |
| Divisions: | Care Policy and Evaluation Centre |
| Subjects: | R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine Q Science > QA Mathematics |
| Date Deposited: | 05 Dec 2024 10:21 |
| Last Modified: | 16 Jan 2025 10:03 |
| URI: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/126261 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
