Cargando…

Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to create a new meta-analysis method for cost-effectiveness studies using comparative efficiency research (COMER). METHODS: We built a new score named total incremental net benefit (TINB), with inverse variance weighting of incremental net benefits (INB). This p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crespo, Carlos, Monleon, Antonio, Díaz, Walter, Ríos, Martín
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292992/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25533141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-139
_version_ 1782352561506877440
author Crespo, Carlos
Monleon, Antonio
Díaz, Walter
Ríos, Martín
author_facet Crespo, Carlos
Monleon, Antonio
Díaz, Walter
Ríos, Martín
author_sort Crespo, Carlos
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to create a new meta-analysis method for cost-effectiveness studies using comparative efficiency research (COMER). METHODS: We built a new score named total incremental net benefit (TINB), with inverse variance weighting of incremental net benefits (INB). This permits determination of whether an alternative is cost-effective, given a specific threshold (TINB > 0 test). Before validation of the model, the structure of dependence between costs and quality-adjusted life years (QoL) was analysed using copula distributions. The goodness-of-fit of a Spanish prospective observational study (n = 498) was analysed using the Independent, Gaussian, T, Gumbel, Clayton, Frank and Placket copulas. Validation was carried out by simulating a copula distribution with log-normal distribution for costs and gamma distribution for disutilities. Hypothetical cohorts were created by varying the sample size (n: 15–500) and assuming three scenarios (1-cost-effective; 2-non-cost-effective; 3-dominant). The COMER result was compared to the theoretical result according to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the INB, assuming a margin of error of 2,000 and 500 monetary units, respectively. RESULTS: The Frank copula with positive dependence (−0.4279) showed a goodness-of-fit sufficient to represent costs and QoL (p-values 0.524 and 0.808). The theoretical INB was within the 95% confidence interval of the TINB, based on 15 individuals with a probability > 80% for scenarios 1 and 2, and > 90% for scenario 3. The TINB > 0 test with 15 individuals showed p-values of 0.0105 (SD: 0.0411) for scenario 1, 0.613 (SD: 0.265) for scenario 2 and < 0.0001 for scenario 3. CONCLUSIONS: COMER is a valid tool for combining cost-effectiveness studies and may be of use to health decision makers. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-139) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4292992
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42929922015-01-14 Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies Crespo, Carlos Monleon, Antonio Díaz, Walter Ríos, Martín BMC Med Res Methodol Technical Advance BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to create a new meta-analysis method for cost-effectiveness studies using comparative efficiency research (COMER). METHODS: We built a new score named total incremental net benefit (TINB), with inverse variance weighting of incremental net benefits (INB). This permits determination of whether an alternative is cost-effective, given a specific threshold (TINB > 0 test). Before validation of the model, the structure of dependence between costs and quality-adjusted life years (QoL) was analysed using copula distributions. The goodness-of-fit of a Spanish prospective observational study (n = 498) was analysed using the Independent, Gaussian, T, Gumbel, Clayton, Frank and Placket copulas. Validation was carried out by simulating a copula distribution with log-normal distribution for costs and gamma distribution for disutilities. Hypothetical cohorts were created by varying the sample size (n: 15–500) and assuming three scenarios (1-cost-effective; 2-non-cost-effective; 3-dominant). The COMER result was compared to the theoretical result according to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the INB, assuming a margin of error of 2,000 and 500 monetary units, respectively. RESULTS: The Frank copula with positive dependence (−0.4279) showed a goodness-of-fit sufficient to represent costs and QoL (p-values 0.524 and 0.808). The theoretical INB was within the 95% confidence interval of the TINB, based on 15 individuals with a probability > 80% for scenarios 1 and 2, and > 90% for scenario 3. The TINB > 0 test with 15 individuals showed p-values of 0.0105 (SD: 0.0411) for scenario 1, 0.613 (SD: 0.265) for scenario 2 and < 0.0001 for scenario 3. CONCLUSIONS: COMER is a valid tool for combining cost-effectiveness studies and may be of use to health decision makers. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-139) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4292992/ /pubmed/25533141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-139 Text en © Crespo et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Crespo, Carlos
Monleon, Antonio
Díaz, Walter
Ríos, Martín
Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
title Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
title_full Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
title_fullStr Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
title_short Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
title_sort comparative efficiency research (comer): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292992/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25533141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-139
work_keys_str_mv AT crespocarlos comparativeefficiencyresearchcomermetaanalysisofcosteffectivenessstudies
AT monleonantonio comparativeefficiencyresearchcomermetaanalysisofcosteffectivenessstudies
AT diazwalter comparativeefficiencyresearchcomermetaanalysisofcosteffectivenessstudies
AT riosmartin comparativeefficiencyresearchcomermetaanalysisofcosteffectivenessstudies