Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Data from Multinational Trials: The Use of Bivariate Hierarchical Modeling
- 1 July 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Medical Decision Making
- Vol. 27 (4) , 471-490
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x07302132
Abstract
Health care cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) often uses individual patient data (IPD) from multinational randomized controlled trials. Although designed to account for between-patient sampling variability in the clinical and economic data, standard analytical approaches to CEA ignore the presence of between-location variability in the study results. This is a restrictive limitation given that countries often differ in factors that could affect the results of CEAs, such as the availability of health care resources, their unit costs, clinical practice, and patient case mix. The authors advocate the use of Bayesian bivariate hierarchical modeling to analyze multinational cost-effectiveness data. This analytical framework explicitly recognizes that patient-level costs and outcomes are nested within countries. Using real-life data, the authors illustrate how the proposed methods can be applied to obtain (a) more appropriate estimates of overall cost-effectiveness and associated measure of sampling uncertainty compared to standard CEA and (b) country-specific cost-effectiveness estimates that can be used to assess the between-location variability of the study results while controlling for differences in country-specific and patientspecific characteristics. It is demonstrated that results from standard CEA using IPD from multinational trials display a large degree of variability across the 17 countries included in the analysis, producing potentially misleading results. In contrast, ``shrinkage estimates'' obtained from the modeling approach proposed here facilitate the appropriate quantification of country-specific cost-effectiveness estimates while weighting the results based on the level of information available within each country. The authors suggest that the methods presented here represent a general framework for the analysis of economic data collected from different locations.Keywords
This publication has 53 references indexed in Scilit:
- Conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials: Toward a research consensusAmerican Heart Journal, 2005
- Insights on bias and information in group-level studiesBiostatistics, 2003
- A comparison between traditional methods and multilevel regression for the analysis of multicenter intervention studiesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2003
- Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problemsStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysisHealth Economics, 2002
- Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly headStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Bayesian cost‐effectiveness analysis from clinical trial dataStatistics in Medicine, 2001
- Multilevel Analysis MethodsSociological Methods & Research, 1994
- Comparing Cost-Effectiveness Across CountriesPharmacoEconomics, 1994
- Hierarchical models for multicentre binary response studiesStatistics in Medicine, 1990