Cost-Effectiveness Models for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Cross-Model Comparison of Hypothetical Treatment Scenarios
LUNG-DISEASE
Male
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Severity of Illness Index
CLASSIFICATION
MARKOV MODEL
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
SEVERE COPD
SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS
COPD
Humans
COPD ; Cost-effectiveness ; Model ; Validation
cost-effectiveness
validation
COMPLICATIONS
model
MORTALITY
Health Policy
Smoking
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Uncertainty
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
GLOBAL BURDEN
3. Good health
EXACERBATIONS
Models, Economic
DYNAMIC POPULATION-MODEL
Disease Progression
Female
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
DOI:
10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1721
Publication Date:
2014-05-14T10:45:46Z
AUTHORS (12)
ABSTRACT
To compare different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models with respect to structure and input parameters and to cross-validate the models by running the same hypothetical treatment scenarios.COPD modeling groups simulated four hypothetical interventions with their model and compared the results with a reference scenario of no intervention. The four interventions modeled assumed 1) 20% reduction in decline in lung function, 2) 25% reduction in exacerbation frequency, 3) 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 4) all these effects combined. The interventions were simulated for a 5-year and lifetime horizon with standardization, if possible, for sex, age, COPD severity, smoking status, exacerbation frequencies, mortality due to other causes, utilities, costs, and discount rates. Furthermore, uncertainty around the outcomes of intervention four was compared.Seven out of nine contacted COPD modeling groups agreed to participate. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the most comprehensive intervention, intervention four, was €17,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two models, €25,000 to €28,000/QALY for three models, and €47,000/QALY for the remaining two models. Differences in the ICERs could mainly be explained by differences in input values for disease progression, exacerbation-related mortality, and all-cause mortality, with high input values resulting in low ICERs and vice versa. Lifetime results were mainly affected by the input values for mortality. The probability of intervention four to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY was 90% to 100% for five models and about 70% and 50% for the other two models, respectively.Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Coming soon ....
REFERENCES (43)
CITATIONS (38)
EXTERNAL LINKS
PlumX Metrics
RECOMMENDATIONS
FAIR ASSESSMENT
Coming soon ....
JUPYTER LAB
Coming soon ....