Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Methods of Data Synthesis

Re-Estimating Parameters of an Existing Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Model

  • Original Research Article
  • Comparing Methods of Data Synthesis
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Cost-effectiveness models should always be amendable to updating once new data on important model parameters become available. However, several methods of synthesizing data exist and the choice of method may affect the cost-effectiveness estimates.

Objectives: To investigate the impact of the different methods of metaanalysis on final estimates of cost effectiveness from a probabilistic Markov model for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods: We compared four different methods to synthesize data for the parameters of a cost-effectiveness model for COPD: frequentist and Bayesian fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) meta-analyses. These methods were applied to obtain new transition probabilities between stable disease states and new event probabilities.

Results: The four methods resulted in different estimates of probabilities and their standard errors (SE). The effects of using different synthesis techniques were most prominent in the estimation of the SEs. We found up to 9-fold differences in SEs of the exacerbation probabilities and up to almost 3-fold differences in SEs of the transition probabilities. We found that the frequentist FE model produced the lowest SEs, whereas the Bayesian RE model produced the highest for all parameters. The estimates of differences between treatments in total costs, QALYs and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) also varied depending on the synthesis method. The CEAC was 15% lower with a Bayesian RE model than with any of the other models.

Conclusions: Health economic modellers should be aware that the choice of synthesis technique can affect resulting model parameters considerably, which can in turn affect estimates of cost effectiveness and the uncertainty around them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global strategy for diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 2009 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.goldcopd.com/Guidelineitem.asp?l1=2&l2=1&intId=2003 [Accessed 2006 Jul 6]

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rutten-van Mölken M, Lee TA. Economic modeling in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2006 Sep; 3 (7): 630–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oostenbrink JB, Rutten-van Molken MP, Monz BU, et al. Probabilistic Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of bronchodilator therapy in COPD patients in different countries. Value Health 2005; 8: 32–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rutten-van Mölken MP, Oostenbrink JB, Miravitlles M, et al. Modelling the 5-year cost effectiveness of tiotropium, salmeterol and ipratropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain. Eur J Health Econ 2007; 8: 123–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Oostenbrink JB, Al MJ, Oppe M, et al. Expected value of perfect information: an empirical example of reducing decision uncertainty by conducting additional research. Value Health 2008; 11: 1070–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Riley RD, Simmonds MC, Look MP. Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 431–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Der Simonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sutton AJ, Abrams K, Jones DR, et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. London: Wiley, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vincken W, van Noord JA, Greefhorst AP, et al. Improved health outcomes in patients with COPD during 1 year’s treatment with tiotropium. Eur Respir J 2002; 19: 209–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Casaburi R, Mahler DA, Jones PW, et al. A long-term evaluation of once-daily inhaled tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2002; 19: 217–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brusasco V, Hodder R, Miravitlles M, et al. Health outcomes following treatment for six months with once daily tiotropium compared with twice daily salmeterol in patients with COPD. Thorax 2003; 58: 399–404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Scanlon PD, Connett JE, Waller LA, et al. Smoking cessation and lung function in mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Lung Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161: 381–90

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bateman E, Singh D, Smith D, et al. Efficacy and safety of tiotropium Respimat SMI in COPD in two 1-year randomized studies. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2010; 5: 197–208

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002 Jun 15; 21 (11): 1539–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, et al. Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carlin BP, Louis TA. Bayes and emperical Bayes methods for data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kreft IGG, Leeuw JD. Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  19. Spiegenhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc B 2002; 64: 1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fenwick E, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in the dock: case not proven? Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 93–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Arends LR. Multivariate meta-analysis: modelling the heterogeneity. Mixing apples and oranges: dangerous or delicious? [PhD thesis]. Alblasserdam: Haveka BV, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 1–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gelman A. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal 2006; 1: 515–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Browne WJ, Draper D. A comparison of Bayesian and likelihood-based methods for fitting multilevel models. Bayesian Anal 2006; 1: 473–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH. The Institute for Medical Technology Assessment has a consultancy agreement with Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH. The Institute also received grants to conduct pharmacoeconomic research on respiratory medicines of Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, GSK and Nycomed. The authors do not hold stock or other equities in pharmaceutical companies. Mark Oppe conducted the analyses and drafted the article. Maiwenn Al gave advice on the analyses and was involved in writing the article. Maureen Rutten-van Mölken was involved in the study design, writing the article and project management.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Mark Oppe, Maiwenn Al & Maureen van Rutten-Mölken

Authors
  1. Mark Oppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maiwenn Al
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maureen van Rutten-Mölken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Oppe.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oppe, M., Al, M. & van Rutten-Mölken, M. Comparing Methods of Data Synthesis. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 239–250 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11539870-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11539870-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation