Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Modeling of clinical-effectiveness in a cost-effectiveness analysis typically involves some form of partitioned survival or Markov decision-analytic modeling. The health states progression-free, progression and death and the transitions between them are frequently of interest. With partitioned survival, progression is not modeled directly as a state; instead, time in that state is derived from the difference in area between the overall survival and the progression-free survival curves. With Markov decision-analytic modeling, a priori assumptions are often made with regard to the transitions rather than using the individual patient data directly to model them. This article compares a multi-state modeling survival regression approach to these two common methods. As a case study, we use a trial comparing rituximab in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide v. fludarabine and cyclophosphamide alone for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We calculated mean Life Years and QALYs that involved extrapolation of survival outcomes in the trial. We adapted an existing multi-state modeling approach to incorporate parametric distributions for transition hazards, to allow extrapolation. The comparison showed that, due to the different assumptions used in the different approaches, a discrepancy in results was evident. The partitioned survival and Markov decision-analytic modeling deemed the treatment cost-effective with ICERs of just over £16,000 and £13,000, respectively. However, the results with the multi-state modeling were less conclusive, with an ICER of just over £29,000. This work has illustrated that it is imperative to check whether assumptions are realistic, as different model choices can influence clinical and cost-effectiveness results.

Original publication

DOI

10.1177/0272989x16670617

Type

Journal

Medical Decision Making

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Publication Date

05/2017

Volume

37

Pages

427 - 439