Accurately Reflecting Uncertainty When Using Patient-Level Simulation Models to Extrapolate Clinical Trial Data
- PMID: 32431211
- PMCID: PMC7323001
- DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20916442
Accurately Reflecting Uncertainty When Using Patient-Level Simulation Models to Extrapolate Clinical Trial Data
Abstract
Introduction. Patient-level simulation models facilitate extrapolation of clinical trial data while allowing for heterogeneity, prior history, and nonlinearity. However, combining different types of uncertainty around within-trial and extrapolated results remains challenging. Methods. We tested 4 methods to combine parameter uncertainty (around the regression coefficients used to predict future events) with sampling uncertainty (uncertainty around mean risk factors within the finite sample whose outcomes are being predicted and the effect of treatment on these risk factors). We compared these 4 methods using a simulation study based on an economic evaluation extrapolating the AFORRD randomized controlled trial using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model version 2. This established type 2 diabetes model predicts patient-level health outcomes and costs. Results. The 95% confidence intervals around life years gained gave 25% coverage when sampling uncertainty was excluded (i.e., 25% of 95% confidence intervals contained the "true" value). Allowing for sampling uncertainty as well as parameter uncertainty widened confidence intervals by 6.3-fold and gave 96.3% coverage. Methods adjusting for baseline risk factors that combine sampling and parameter uncertainty overcame the bias that can result from between-group baseline imbalance and gave confidence intervals around 50% wider than those just considering parameter uncertainty, with 99.8% coverage. Conclusions. Analyses extrapolating data for individual trial participants should include both sampling uncertainty and parameter uncertainty and should adjust for any imbalance in baseline covariates.
Keywords: decision-analytical modeling; diabetes; patient-level simulation models; randomized controlled trial.
Conflict of interest statement
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: All authors have been involved in the development of the UKPDS-OM, which is licensed by the University of Oxford.
Figures
References
-
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-t... (accessed 19 November 2019). - PubMed
-
- Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM. UKPDS outcomes model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56(9):1925–33. - PubMed
-
- Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia. 2004;47(10):1747–59. - PubMed
-
- Davis S, Stevenson M, Tappenden P, Wailoo A. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 15: cost-effectiveness modelling using patient-level simulation. Available from: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310370/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK310370.pdf (accessed 29 May 2019). - PubMed
-
- Groot Koerkamp B, Stijnen T, Weinstein MC, Hunink MG. The combined analysis of uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(4):650–61. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources