IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v17y2016i8d10.1007_s10198-015-0731-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice of statistical model for cost-effectiveness analysis and covariate adjustment: empirical application of prominent models and assessment of their results

Author

Listed:
  • Theodoros Mantopoulos

    (University of Bristol)

  • Paul M. Mitchell

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Nicky J. Welton

    (University of Bristol)

  • Richard McManus

    (University of Oxford)

  • Lazaros Andronis

    () (University of Birmingham)

Abstract

Context Statistical models employed in analysing patient-level cost and effectiveness data need to be flexible enough to adjust for any imbalanced covariates, account for correlations between key parameters, and accommodate potential skewed distributions of costs and/or effects. We compare prominent statistical models for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and covariate adjustment to assess their performance and accuracy using data from a large RCT. Method Seemingly unrelated regressions, linear regression of net monetary benefits, and Bayesian generalized linear models with various distributional assumptions were used to analyse data from the TASMINH2 trial. Each model adjusted for covariates prognostic of costs and outcomes. Results Cost-effectiveness results were notably sensitive to model choice. Models assuming normally distributed costs and effects provided a poor fit to the data, and potentially misleading inference. Allowing for a beta distribution captured the true incremental difference in effects and changed the decision as to which treatment is preferable. Conclusions Our findings suggest that Bayesian generalized linear models which allow for non-normality in estimation offer an attractive tool for researchers undertaking cost-effectiveness analyses. The flexibility provided by such methods allows the researcher to analyse patient-level data which are not necessarily normally distributed, while at the same time it enables assessing the effect of various baseline covariates on cost-effectiveness results.

Suggested Citation

  • Theodoros Mantopoulos & Paul M. Mitchell & Nicky J. Welton & Richard McManus & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Choice of statistical model for cost-effectiveness analysis and covariate adjustment: empirical application of prominent models and assessment of their results," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 927-938, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:17:y:2016:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-015-0731-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-015-0731-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-015-0731-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Moreno, Elías & Girón, F.J. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2012. "Optimal healthcare decisions: The importance of the covariates in cost–effectiveness analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 512-522.
    3. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    4. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    5. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    6. F. J. Vázquez‐Polo & M. A. Negrín Hernández & B. González López‐Valcárcel, 2005. "Using covariates to reduce uncertainty in the economic evaluation of clinical trial data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 545-557, June.
    7. Anirban Basu, 2005. "Extended generalized linear models: Simultaneous estimation of flexible link and variance functions," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 501-516, December.
    8. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & Edmond S.‐W. Ng & James Carpenter & Simon G. Thompson, 2012. "Methods For Covariate Adjustment In Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis That Use Cluster Randomised Trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(9), pages 1101-1118, September.
    9. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    10. Cantoni, Eva & Ronchetti, Elvezio, 2006. "A robust approach for skewed and heavy-tailed outcomes in the analysis of health care expenditures," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 198-213, March.
    11. Anthony O'Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2003. "Assessing and comparing costs: how robust are the bootstrap and methods based on asymptotic normality?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 33-49, January.
    12. Andrew H. Briggs, 1999. "A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 257-261, May.
    13. Manning, Willard G. & Mullahy, John, 2001. "Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 461-494, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-effectiveness analysis; Regression methods; Covariate adjustment; Bayesian regression methods; Seemingly unrelated regressions; Net monetary benefits;

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    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:spr:eujhec:v:17:y:2016:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-015-0731-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.