Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation

View ORCID ProfileJohn Graves, Shawn Garbett, Zilu Zhou, View ORCID ProfileJonathan S. Schildcrout, View ORCID ProfileJosh Peterson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.26.20113845
John Graves
1Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1200, Nashville, TN 37203, (615) 343-4875,
Ph.D
Roles: Associate Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John Graves
  • For correspondence: john.graves{at}vanderbilt.edu john.graves{at}vanderbilt.edu
Shawn Garbett
2Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Biostatistics,
MS
Roles: Assisstant in Biostatistics
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: shawn.garbett{at}vumc.org
Zilu Zhou
3Health Policy Analyst II, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Department of Health Policy,
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: zilu.zhou{at}vumc.org
Jonathan S. Schildcrout
4Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center,
Ph.D
Roles: Associate Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan S. Schildcrout
  • For correspondence: jonny.schild{at}Vanderbilt.Edu
Josh Peterson
5Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Informatics,
MD, MPH
Roles: Associate Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Josh Peterson
  • For correspondence: josh.peterson{at}vanderbilt.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We discuss tradeoffs and errors associated with approaches to modeling health economic decisions. Through an application in pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing to guide drug selection for individuals with a genetic variant, we assessed model accuracy, optimal decisions and computation time for an identical decision scenario modeled four ways: using (1) coupled-time differential equations [DEQ]; (2) a cohort-based discrete-time state transition model [MARKOV]; (3) an individual discrete-time state transition microsimulation model [MICROSIM]; and (4) discrete event simulation [DES]. Relative to DEQ, the Net Monetary Benefit for PGx testing (vs. a reference strategy of no testing) based on MARKOV with rate-to-probability conversions using commonly used formulas resulted in different optimal decisions. MARKOV was nearly identical to DEQ when transition probabilities were embedded using a transition intensity matrix. Among stochastic models, DES model outputs converged to DEQ with substantially fewer simulated patients (1 million) vs. MICROSIM (1 billion). Overall, properly embedded Markov models provided the most favorable mix of accuracy and run-time, but introduced additional complexity for calculating cost and quality-adjusted life year outcomes due to the inclusion of “jumpover” states after proper embedding of transition probabilities. Among stochastic models, DES offered the most favorable mix of accuracy, reliability, and speed.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

Financial support for this study was provided by the NIH Common Fund (U01HL122904) and the National Human Genome Research Institute (1R01HG009694-01). The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This work does not draw on human subjects data, though the parent grant (1R01HG009694-01) was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All replication code and data for this manuscript is available as part of the supplementary material. Please contact the lead author (Graves) for access.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 28, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation
John Graves, Shawn Garbett, Zilu Zhou, Jonathan S. Schildcrout, Josh Peterson
medRxiv 2020.05.26.20113845; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.26.20113845
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation
John Graves, Shawn Garbett, Zilu Zhou, Jonathan S. Schildcrout, Josh Peterson
medRxiv 2020.05.26.20113845; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.26.20113845

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Economics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)