Top

PharmacoEconomics

Published in:

Open Access 01-09-2020 | Diabetes | Original Research Article

Comparing the Cohort and Micro-Simulation Modeling Approaches in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Case Study of the IHE Diabetes Cohort Model and the Economics and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM

Authors: Michael Willis, Adam Fridhammar, Jens Gundgaard, Andreas Nilsson, Pierre Johansen

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 9/2020

Abstract

Background

Economic modeling is widely used in estimating cost-effectiveness in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Because type 2 diabetes is complex and patients are heterogenous, the cohort modeling approach may generate biased estimates of costeffectiveness. The IHE Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) was constructed using the cohort approach as an alternative for stakeholders with limited resources, some of whom have voiced reasonable concerns about a lack of transparency with type 2 diabetes micro-simulation models and long run times.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to inform decision makers by investigating the direction and magnitude of bias of IHE-DCM cost-effectiveness estimates that can be attributed to the cohort modeling approach.

Methods

Simulation scenarios inspired by the 9th Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge were simulated with IHE-DCM and with a micro-simulation model, the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM), and key metrics (absolute and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years, event rates, and cost-effectiveness) were compared for evidence of systematic differences. The models were harmonized to the extent possible to ensure that differences were driven primarily by the unit of observation and not by other model differences.

Results

IHE-DCM run times were faster and IHE-DCM produced uniformly larger estimates of absolute life-years, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs than ECHO-T2DM but smaller between-arm (incremental) differences. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits varied similarly and predictably across the scenarios. On average, IHE-DCM estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits were CAN$269 (3%) and CAN$2935 (10%) smaller, respectively, than ECHO-T2DM.

Conclusions

There was little evidence that estimated cost-effectiveness metrics, the outcomes that matter most to stakeholders, differed systematically.

Available only for authorised users

This differs from a conventional cross-validation analysis, in which the models are applied without adjustment to the same decision-making problem. In this exercise, the models were adjusted to remove structural differences to better isolate differences attributable to the unit of representation (i.e., cohort vs patient).

Fowler MJ. Microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. Clin Diabetes. 2008;26(2):77–82. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaclin.26.2.77.CrossRef

Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2000;321(7258):405–12.CrossRef

ADA. Standards of medical care in diabetes: 2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(S1).

ADA. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):917–28.

Kanavos P, van den Aardweg S, Schurer. Diabetes expenditure, burden of disease and management in 5 EU countries. LSE Health, London School of Economics, 2012. Available from: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54896/. [Accessed Apr 2020].

Bommer C, Sagalova V, Heesemann E, Manne-Goehler J, Atun R, Barnighausen T, et al. Global economic burden of diabetes in adults: projections from 2015 to 2030. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):963–70. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1962.CrossRefPubMed

ADA. Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(9):2262–5.

Mt Hood Diabetes Challenges. Diabetes simulation modeling database. Available from: https://www.mthooddiabeteschallenge.com/registry. [Accessed 2 Dec 2019].

Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):678–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x12454941.CrossRef

10.

Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, Jahn B, Owens DK, Cohen DJ, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force–3. Value Health. 2012;15(6):812–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.014.CrossRefPubMed

11.

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. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.012.CrossRefPubMed

12.

CADTH. CADTH pharmaceutical reviews update: issue 12. 2020. Available from: https://cadth.ca/cadth-pharmaceutical-reviews-update-issue-12?utm_source=CONS+List&utm_campaign=19212071f1-lecture-08-06-2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f3b3313866-19212071f1-263121177. [Accessed 26 Feb 2020].

13.

Palmer AJ, Mount H, Modeling G, Clarke P, Gray A, Leal J, Lloyd A, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fifth Mount Hood challenge meeting. Value Health. 2013;16(4):670–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Govan L, Wu O, Lindsay R, Briggs A. How do diabetes models measure up? A review of diabetes economic models and ADA guidelines. J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2015;3(2):132–52.CrossRef

15.

Lundqvist A, Steen Carlsson K, Johansen P, Andersson E, Willis M. Validation of the IHE cohort model of type 2 diabetes and the impact of choice of macrovascular risk equations. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e110235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Davis S, Stevenson M, Tappenden P, Wailoo A. NICE DSU technical support document 15: cost-effectiveness modelling using patient-level simulation. 2014.

17.

Lundqvist A, Andersson E, Steen Carlsson K. The costs of diabetes in 2020 and 2030: a model analysis comparing innovative glucose lowering treatments in second line following European and American guidelines compared to current standard of care. In: IHE Report 2016:9, Lund. Available from: https://ihe.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IHE-Report_2016_9_.pdf. [Accessed 3 May 2020].

18.

Ericsson A, Fridhammar A. Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide and lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2019;22(10):997–1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2019.1614009.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ericsson A, Glah D, Lorenzi M, Jansen JP, Fridhammar A. Cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide as add-on therapies to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0191953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191953.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Ericsson A, Lundqvist A. Cost effectiveness of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) in a fixed combination for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus in Sweden. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):237–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0301-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Johansen P, Hakan-Bloch J, Liu AR, Bech PG, Persson S, Leiter LA. Cost effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Canada. Pharmacoecon Open. 2019;3(4):537–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-019-0131-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Steen Carlsson K, Persson U. Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin. J Med Econ. 2014;17(9):658–69. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2014.933110.CrossRefPubMed

23.

The Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA). Hurtig metodevurdering ved forhåndsgodkjent refusjon §2: Ozempic (semaglutid) til behandling av type 2 diabetes mellitus. 2019. Available from: https://legemiddelverket.no/Documents/Offentlig%20finansiering%20og%20pris/Metodevurderinger/O/Ozempic_T2D_2019.pdf. [Accessed 5 Dec 2019].

24.

The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). Ansökan inom läkemedelsförmånerna: Ozempic. 2018. Available from: https://www.tlv.se/download/18.28d2f835166b654d02f301be/1540800166127/bes181025_ozempic.pdf. [Accessed 5 Dec 2019].

25.

CADTH. CADTH common drug review: pharmaeconomic review report: semaglutide (Ozempic) 2019. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/sr0594-ozempic-pharmacoeconomic-review-report.pdf. [Accessed 3 May 2020].

26.

Palmer AJ, Si L, Tew M, Hua X, Willis MS, Asseburg C, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its transparency: a report on the Eighth Mount Hood challenge. Value Health. 2018;21(6):724–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.02.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Lin F, Thomas S, Baldwin M. Microsimulation or cohort modelling? A case study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Value Health. 2013;16(7):A586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.1617.CrossRef

28.

Kuehne FC, Chancellor J, Mollon P, Weinstein MC. PIN36 Microsimulation or cohort modeling? A comparative case study in HIV infection. Value Health. 2007;10(3):A170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-3015(10)69056-0.CrossRef

29.

Zhou HJ, Zhao YJ, Wojciech AC, Lin L, Caro JJ, Moller J, et al. Differences in cost-effectiveness estimates for chronic hepatitis C treatment among cohort Markov model, Markov microsimulation and discrete event simulation. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.468.CrossRef

30.

Eddy DM. Accuracy versus transparency in pharmacoeconomic modelling: finding the right balance. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(9):837–44. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624090-00002.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Zbrozek AS, Dong F, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM I model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(5):725–34.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Bagust A, Hopkinson PK, Maier W, Currie CJ. An economic model of the long-term health care burden of type II diabetes. Diabetologia. 2001;44(12):2140–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001250100023.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Davis WA, Knuiman MW, Davis TM. An Australian cardiovascular risk equation for type 2 diabetes: the Fremantle diabetes study. Intern Med J. 2010;40(4):286–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.01958.x.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ahmad Kiadaliri A, Gerdtham UG, Nilsson P, Eliasson B, Gudbjornsdottir S, Carlsson KS. Towards renewed health economic simulation of type 2 diabetes: risk equations for first and second cardiovascular events from Swedish register data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e62650. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062650.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Farmer AJ, Fenn P, Stevens RJ, 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-004-1527-z.CrossRefPubMed

36.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-013-2940-y.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Vemer P, Corro Ramos I, van Voorn GA, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. AdViSHE: a validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(4):349–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0327-2.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Willis M, Asseburg C, He J. Validation of economic and health outcomes simulation model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). J Med Econ. 2013;16(8):1007–211. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2013.809352.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Willis M, Johansen P, Nilsson A, Asseburg C. Validation of the economic and health outcomes model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(3):375–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0471-3.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Mt Hood Diabetes Challenge Network. Mt Hood Diabetes Challenge Reference Case simulation. Available from: https://www.mthooddiabeteschallenge.com/refsim. [Accessed 27 May 2019].

41.

ADVANCE Collaborative Group. ADVANCE–action in diabetes and vascular disease: patient recruitment and characteristics of the study population at baseline. Diabet Med. 2005;22(7):882–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01596.x.CrossRef

42.

Mt Hood Diabetes Challenges. Challenge session final instructions. Available from: https://www.mthooddiabeteschallenge.com/challenge-sessions. [Accessed Dec 2019].

43.

Corro Ramos I, van Voorn GAK, Vemer P, Feenstra TL, Al MJ. A new statistical method to determine the degree of validity of health economic model outcomes against empirical data. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1041–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.016.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Zethelius B, Eliasson B, Eeg-Olofsson K, Svensson AM, Gudbjornsdottir S, Cederholm J. A new model for 5-year risk of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes, from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93(2):276–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2011.05.037.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Kengne AP, Patel A, Marre M, Travert F, Lievre M, Zoungas S, et al. Contemporary model for cardiovascular risk prediction in people with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011;18(3):393–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741826710394270.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Adler AI, Stevens RJ, Manley SE, Bilous RW, Cull CA, Holman RR. Development and progression of nephropathy in type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS 64). Kidney Int. 2003;63(1):225–32. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00712.x.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Hoerger TJ, Wittenborn JS, Segel JE, Burrows NR, Imai K, Eggers P, et al. A health policy model of CKD: 1. Model construction, assumptions, and validation of health consequences. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;55(3):452–62. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Hoerger TJ, Wittenborn JS, Segel JE, Burrows NR, Imai K, Eggers P, et al. A health policy model of CKD: 2. The cost-effectiveness of microalbuminuria screening. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;55(3):463–73. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.11.017.CrossRefPubMed

49.

DCCT. Epidemiology of severe hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial: the DCCT Research Group. Am J Med. 1991;90(4):450–9.

50.

Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, Woodward M, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Eng J Med. 2008;358(24):2560–72. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0802987.CrossRef

51.

Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ. 2005;14(3):217–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.910.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparing the Cohort and Micro-Simulation Modeling Approaches in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Case Study of the IHE Diabetes Cohort Model and the Economics and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM
Authors: Michael Willis
Adam Fridhammar
Jens Gundgaard
Andreas Nilsson
Pierre Johansen
Publication date: 01-09-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Diabetes
Type 2 Diabetes
Published in: PharmacoEconomics / Issue 9/2020
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00922-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparing the Cohort and Micro-Simulation Modeling Approaches in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Case Study of the IHE Diabetes Cohort Model and the Economics and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2020

Real World Cost-of-Illness Evidence in Hepatitis C Virus: A systematic review

Economic Evaluation of Cannabinoid Oil for Dravet Syndrome: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Financing Drug Innovation in the US: Current Framework and Emerging Challenges

Inclisiran as Adjunct Lipid-Lowering Therapy for Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cost-Utility Analysis of Ravulizumab Compared with Eculizumab in Adult Patients with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria

Keeping Pace with Pharmaceutical Innovation: The Importance of the NICE Methods Review