Calibrating Models in Economic Evaluation

AbstractBackground: The importance of assessing the accuracy of health economic decision models is widely recognized. Many applied decision models (implicitly) assume that the process of identifying relevant values for a model’s input parameters is sufficient to prove the model’s accuracy. The selection of infeasible combinations of input parameter values is most likely in the context of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), where parameter values are drawn from independently specified probability distributions for each model parameter. Model calibration involves the identification of input parameter values that produce model output parameters that best predict observed data. Methods: An empirical comparison of three key calibration issues is presented: the applied measure of goodness of fit (GOF); the search strategy for selecting sets of input parameter values; and the convergence criteria for determining acceptable GOF. The comparisons are presented in the context of probabilistic calibration, a widely applicable approach to calibration that can be easily integrated with PSA. The appendix provides a user’s guide to probabilistic calibration, with the reader invited to download the Microsoft® Excel-based model reported in this article. Results: The calibrated models consistently provided higher mean estimates of the models’ output parameter, illustrating the potential gain in accuracy derived from calibrating decision models. Model uncertainty was also reduced. The chi-squared GOF measure differentiated between the accuracy of different parameter sets to a far greater degree than the likelihood GOF measure. The guided search strategy produced higher mean estimates of the models’ output parameter, as well as a narrower range of predicted output values, which may reflect greater precision in the identification of candidate parameter sets or more limited coverage of the parameter space. The broader convergence threshold resulted in lower mean estimates of the models’ output, and slightly wider ranges, which were closer to the outputs associated with the non-calibrated approach. Conclusions: Probabilistic calibration provides a broadly applicable method that will improve the relevance of health economic decision models, and simultaneously reduce model uncertainty. The analyses reported in this paper inform the more efficient and accurate application of calibration methods for health economic decision models.

[1]  J. Karnon,et al.  Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions aimed at preventing medication error at hospital admission (medicines reconciliation). , 2009, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[2]  M K Campbell,et al.  Systematic review of the long-term effects and economic consequences of treatments for obesity and implications for health improvement. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[3]  J. Forbes,et al.  A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  M. Jit,et al.  Estimating Progression Rates for Human Papillomavirus Infection From Epidemiological Data , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[5]  Y Wang,et al.  Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials , 2005, The Lancet.

[6]  Richard G. White,et al.  Calibrating Models in Economic Evaluation , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[7]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making , 2008, Journal of health services research & policy.

[8]  J. Karnon,et al.  Cost-utility analysis of screening high-risk groups for anal cancer. , 2008, Journal of public health.

[9]  J. Karnon,et al.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4-5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2008, Health technology assessment.

[10]  Jonathan Karnon,et al.  Cost utility analysis of early adjuvant letrozole or anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early invasive breast cancer: the UK perspective , 2008, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[11]  Milton C. Weinstein,et al.  Recent Developments in Decision-Analytic Modelling for Economic Evaluation , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[12]  Jonathan Karnon,et al.  A Hybrid Cohort Individual Sampling Natural History Model of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Using Probabilistic Calibration , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  J. Karnon Aromatase Inhibitors in Breast Cancer , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[14]  M Sculpher,et al.  Health Technology Assessment: Development and Future , 2009 .

[15]  Karen M Kuntz,et al.  Multiparameter calibration of a natural history model of cervical cancer. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  Tejal K. Gandhi,et al.  A prospective hazard and improvement analytic approach to predicting the effectiveness of medication error interventions , 2007 .

[17]  M Baum,et al.  Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for breast cancer , 2005, The Lancet.