Gaussian Process Modeling in Conjunction with Individual Patient Simulation Modeling: A Case Study Describing the Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for the Treatment of Established Osteoporosis

Individual patient-level models can simulate more complex disease processes than cohort-based approaches. However, large numbers of patients need to be simulated to reduce 1storder uncertainty, increasing the computational time required and often resulting in the inability to perform extensive sensitivity analyses. A solution, employing Gaussian process techniques, is presented using a case study, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a sample of treatments for established osteoporosis. The Gaussian process model accurately formulated a statistical relationship between the inputs to the individual patient model and its outputs. This model reducedthe time required for future runs from 150 min to virtually-instantaneous, allowing probabilistic sensitivity analyses-to be undertaken. This reduction in computational time was achieved with minimal loss in accuracy. The authors believe that this case study demonstrates the value of this technique in handling 1st- and 2nd-order uncertainty in the context of health economic modeling, particularly when more widely used techniques are computationally expensive or are unable to accurately model patient histories.

[1]  O. Johnell,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in established osteoporosis , 1995, Osteoporosis International.

[2]  D. Torgerson,et al.  Using Economics to Prioritize Research: A Case Study of Randomized Trials for the Prevention of Hip Fractures Due to Osteoporosis , 1996, Journal of health services research & policy.

[3]  A A Stinnett,et al.  Estimating CE Ratios under Second-order Uncertainty , 1997, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  C C Glüer,et al.  An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. , 2000, Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA.

[5]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2001, Health economics.

[6]  A H Briggs,et al.  Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions , 1999, BMJ.

[7]  T. Abbott,et al.  Patients with Prior Fractures Have an Increased Risk of Future Fractures: A Summary of the Literature and Statistical Synthesis , 2000, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[8]  Henry P. Wynn,et al.  [Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments]: Rejoinder , 1989 .

[9]  A H Briggs,et al.  Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses , 2001, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[10]  D. Torgerson,et al.  The Cost of Treating Osteoporotic Fractures in the United Kingdom Female Population , 1998, Osteoporosis International.

[11]  G. Mclauchlan,et al.  Epidemiology of fractures in 15 000 adults: The influence of age and gender , 1998 .

[12]  B A Craig,et al.  Uncertainty in Decision Models Analyzing Cost-Effectiveness , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  O. Johnell,et al.  Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures , 1996 .

[14]  Ann Netten,et al.  Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2002 , 2000 .