4.4 Article

Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation

期刊

MEDICAL DECISION MAKING
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 453-464

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21995805

关键词

decision modeling; pharmacogenomics; health economic methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the impact of pharmacogenomic testing on guiding drug selection using four different modeling approaches, with Markov models showing favorable mix of accuracy and runtime. Discrete event simulation models performed well in terms of accuracy, reliability, and speed.
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 4 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 (v. 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) v. MICROSIM (1 billion). Overall, properly embedded Markov models provided the most favorable mix of accuracy and runtime 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据