IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0150032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis: Evidence from a Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Béranger Lueza
  • Audrey Mauguen
  • Jean-Pierre Pignon
  • Oliver Rivero-Arias
  • Julia Bonastre
  • MAR-LC Collaborative Group

Abstract

Objective: In economic evaluation, a commonly used outcome measure for the treatment effect is the between-arm difference in restricted mean survival time (rmstD). This study illustrates how different survival analysis methods can be used to estimate the rmstD for economic evaluation using individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Our aim was to study if/how the choice of a method impacts on cost-effectiveness results. Methods: We used IPD from the Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer concerning 2,000 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, included in ten trials. We considered methods either used in the field of meta-analysis or in economic evaluation but never applied to assess the rmstD for economic evaluation using IPD meta-analysis. Methods were classified into two approaches. With the first approach, the rmstD is estimated directly as the area between the two pooled survival curves. With the second approach, the rmstD is based on the aggregation of the rmstDs estimated in each trial. Results: The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and acceptability curves were sensitive to the method used to estimate the rmstD. The estimated rmstDs ranged from 1.7 month to 2.5 months, and mean ICERs ranged from € 24,299 to € 34,934 per life-year gained depending on the chosen method. At a ceiling ratio of € 25,000 per life year-gained, the probability of the experimental treatment being cost-effective ranged from 31% to 68%. Conclusions: This case study suggests that the method chosen to estimate the rmstD from IPD meta-analysis is likely to influence the results of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Béranger Lueza & Audrey Mauguen & Jean-Pierre Pignon & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Julia Bonastre & MAR-LC Collaborative Group, 2016. "Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis: Evidence from a Case Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150032
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150032
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150032&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0150032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gavin B Stewart & Douglas G Altman & Lisa M Askie & Lelia Duley & Mark C Simmonds & Lesley A Stewart, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses: A Comparison of Methods and Recommendations for Practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-8, October.
    2. Jackson Christopher H & Sharples Linda D & Thompson Simon G, 2010. "Survival Models in Health Economic Evaluations: Balancing Fit and Parsimony to Improve Prediction," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-31, October.
    3. Craig C. Earle & George A. Wells, 2000. "An Assessment of Methods to Combine Published Survival Curves," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 104-111, January.
    4. Anell, Anders & Norinder, Anna, 2000. "Health outcome measures used in cost-effectiveness studies: a review of original articles published between 1986 and 1996," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 87-99, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maya B. Mathur & Tyler J. VanderWeele, 2020. "New statistical metrics for multisite replication projects," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 1145-1166, June.
    2. Xiaohui Zeng & Jianhe Li & Liubao Peng & Yunhua Wang & Chongqing Tan & Gannong Chen & Xiaomin Wan & Qiong Lu & Lidan Yi, 2014. "Economic Outcomes of Maintenance Gefitinib for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Unknown EGFR Mutations: A Semi-Markov Model Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Mathur, Maya B & VanderWeele, Tyler, 2018. "Statistical methods for evidence synthesis," Thesis Commons kd6ja, Center for Open Science.
    4. Maria-Florencia Hutter & Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas & Fernando Antonanzas, 2014. "Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 829-840, November.
    5. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    6. Claudia Sala & Pietro Di Lena & Danielle Fernandes Durso & Andrea Prodi & Gastone Castellani & Christine Nardini, 2020. "Evaluation of pre-processing on the meta-analysis of DNA methylation data from the Illumina HumanMethylation450 BeadChip platform," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.