Myths and Misconceptions of Within-Cycle Correction: A Guide for Modelers and Decision Makers

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Elamin H. Elbasha ; Jagpreet Chhatwal
• 刊名：PharmacoEconomics
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：January 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：34
• 期：1
• 页码：13-22
• 全文大小：761 KB
• 参考文献：1.Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force—3. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:690–700.PubMed CrossRef
  2.Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision Modeling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  3.Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322–31.PubMed CrossRef
  4.Sonnenberg FA, Wong JB. Fine-tuning Markov models for life-expectancy calculations. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:170–2.PubMed CrossRef
  5.Barendregt JJ. The half-cycle correction: banish rather than explain it. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:500–2.PubMed CrossRef
  6.Wisløff T. Half-cycle correction and Simpson’s method tested in different health economic models—does it matter which method we use? Abstract, 33rd annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, Chicago, IL; 2011.
  7.Naimark DM, Bott M, Krahn M. The half-cycle correction explained: two alternative pedagogical approaches. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:706–12.PubMed CrossRef
  8.Naimark DM, Kabboul NN, Krahn MD. The half-cycle correction revisited: redemption of a kludge. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:961–70.PubMed CrossRef
  9.Barendregt JJ. The life table method of half cycle correction: getting it right. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:283–5.PubMed CrossRef
  10.Naimark DM, Kabboul NN, Krahn MD. Response to “the life table method of half-cycle correction: getting it right.”. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:286–7.PubMed CrossRef
  11.Beck JR, Pauker SG. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making. 1983;3:419–58.PubMed CrossRef
  12.Briggs A, Sculper M. An introduction to Markov modeling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:397–409.PubMed CrossRef
  13.Soares MO, Canto E, Castro L. Continuous time simulation and discretized models for cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(12):1101–17.PubMed CrossRef
  14.van Rosmalen J, Toy M, O’Mahony JF. A mathematical approach for evaluating Markov models in continuous time without discrete-event simulation. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:767–79.PubMed CrossRef
  15.Elbasha E, Chhatwal J. Characterizing heterogeneity bias in cohort-based models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):857–65.PubMed CrossRef
  16.Elbasha E, Chhatwal J. Theoretical foundations and practical applications of within-cycle correction Methods. Med Decis Making. 2015. pii: 0272989X15585121 (Epub ahead of print).
  17.Davis PJ, Rabinowitz P. Methods of numerical integration. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press; 1984.
  18.Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, Luce BR, ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.PubMed CrossRef
  19.Chhatwal J, Jayasuriya S, Elbasha E. Changing cycle lengths in state-transition models: doing it the right way. ISPOR Connect. 2014;20(5):12–4.
  20.Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Möller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM ISPOR-SMDM TASK FORCE Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–4. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):701–11.PubMed CrossRef
  21.Chhatwal J, He T. Economic evaluations with agent-based modelling: an introduction. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(5):423–33.PubMed CrossRef
  22.Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Endogenous cost-effectiveness analysis and health care technology adoption. J Health Econ. 2013;32:172–80.PubMed CrossRef
  23.Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S, Culyer AJ. Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients? Health Econ. 2015;24(1):1–7.PubMed CrossRef
  24.Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:733–43.PubMed CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Elamin H. Elbasha (1) (3)
  Jagpreet Chhatwal (2)
  
  1. Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA
  3. Merck Research Laboratories, Merck & Co., Inc., UG1C-60, PO Box 1000, North Wales, PA, 19454-1099, USA
  2. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
  
• 刊物主题：Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Quality of Life Research; Health Economics; Health Administration;
• 出版者：Springer International Publishing
• ISSN：1179-2027

文摘

Commonly used decision-analytic models for cost-effectiveness analysis simulate time in discrete steps. Use of discrete-time steps can introduce errors when calculating cumulative outcomes such as costs and quality-adjusted life-years. There are a number of myths or misconceptions concerning how to correct these errors and the need to do so. This tutorial shows that, by neglecting to apply within-cycle (sometimes referred to as half-cycle or continuity) correction methods to the results of discrete-time models, the analyst may arrive at the wrong recommendation regarding the use of a technology. We show that the standard half-cycle correction method results in the same cumulative outcome as the trapezoidal rule and life-table method. However, the trapezoidal rule has the added advantage of applying the correction at each cycle, not just the initial and final cycle. We further show that the Simpson’s 1/3 rule is more accurate than the trapezoidal rule. We recommend using the Simpson’s 1/3 rule in the base-case analysis and, if needed, showing the results with other methods in the sensitivity analysis. We also demonstrate that both the trapezoidal and Simpson’s rules can easily be implemented in commonly used software. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s40273-015-0337-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.