Incorporating Calibrated Model Parameters into Sensitivity Analyses

AbstractObjective: The aim of this study was to examine how calibration uncertainty affects the overall uncertainty of a mathematical model and to evaluate potential drivers of calibration uncertainty. Methods: A lifetime Markov model of the natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical disease was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of a hypothetical HPV vaccine. Published data on cervical cancer incidence and mortality and prevalence of pre-cursor lesions were used as endpoints to calibrate the age- and HPV-type-specific transition probabilities between health states using the Nelder-Mead simplex method of calibration. A conventional probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to assess uncertainty in vaccine efficacy, cost and utility estimates. To quantify the uncertainty around calibrated transition probabilities, a second PSA (calibration PSA) was performed using 25 distinct combinations of objective functions and starting simplexes. Results: The initial calibration produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $US4300 per QALY for vaccination compared with no vaccination, and the conventional PSA gave a 95% credible interval of dominant to $US9800 around this estimate (2005 values). The 95% credible interval for the ICERs in the calibration PSA ranged from $US1000 to $US37 700. Conclusions: Compared with a conventional PSA, the calibration PSA results reveal a greater level of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results. Sensitivity analyses around model calibration should be performed to account for uncertainty arising from the calibration process.

[1]  Natasha K. Stout,et al.  Chapter 7: The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model , 2006 .

[2]  N Urban,et al.  Use of a stochastic simulation model to identify an efficient protocol for ovarian cancer screening. , 1997, Controlled clinical trials.

[3]  Jerry Banks,et al.  Handbook of simulation - principles, methodology, advances, applications, and practice , 1998, A Wiley-Interscience publication.

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

[5]  Natasha K. Stout,et al.  Calibration Methods Used in Cancer Simulation Models and Suggested Reporting Guidelines , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

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

[7]  E. Feuer,et al.  SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2003 , 2006 .

[8]  Milton C Weinstein,et al.  Calibrating longitudinal models to cross-sectional data: the effect of temporal changes in health practices. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[9]  Averill M. Law,et al.  Simulation Modeling and Analysis , 1982 .

[10]  J. Savarino,et al.  Bayesian Calibration of Microsimulation Models , 2009, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[11]  Mark Jit,et al.  Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United Kingdom , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert,et al.  Modeling human papillomavirus and cervical cancer in the United States for analyses of screening and vaccination , 2007, Population health metrics.

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

[14]  Vipat Kuruchittham,et al.  The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[15]  Eric J Feuer,et al.  A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[16]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[17]  Maureen A Smith,et al.  Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[18]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Natural history and screening model for high‐risk human papillomavirus infection, neoplasia and cervical cancer in the Netherlands , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[19]  Vicki B Benard,et al.  Cervical Screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1995–2001 , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  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.

[21]  F. Bruinsma,et al.  Adverse pregnancy outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Vivek Pawar,et al.  Methods of Model Calibration , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[23]  Marie-Claude Boily,et al.  Modeling human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness: quantifying the impact of parameter uncertainty. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[24]  S Gallivan,et al.  Estimating the long-term impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine on the burden of cervical cancer in the UK , 2006, British Journal of Cancer.