Abstract

BackgroundEstimates of future survival can be a key evidence source when deciding if a medical treatment should be funded. Current practice is to use standard parametric models for generating extrapolations. Several emerging, more flexible, survival models are available which can provide improved within-sample fit. This study aimed to assess if these emerging practice models also provided improved extrapolations.MethodsBoth a simulation study and a case-study were used to assess the goodness of fit of five classes of survival model. These were: current practice models, Royston Parmar models (RPMs), Fractional polynomials (FPs), Generalised additive models (GAMs), and Dynamic survival models (DSMs). The simulation study used a mixture-Weibull model as the data-generating mechanism with varying lengths of follow-up and sample sizes. The case-study was long-term follow-up of a prostate cancer trial. For both studies, models were fit to an early data-cut of the data, and extrapolations compared to the known long-term follow-up.ResultsThe emerging practice models provided better within-sample fit than current practice models. For data-rich simulation scenarios (large sample sizes or long follow-up), the GAMs and DSMs provided improved extrapolations compared with current practice. Extrapolations from FPs were always very poor whilst those from RPMs were similar to current practice. With short follow-up all the models struggled to provide useful extrapolations. In the case-study all the models provided very similar estimates, but extrapolations were all poor as no model was able to capture a turning-point during the extrapolated period.ConclusionsGood within-sample fit does not guarantee good extrapolation performance. Both GAMs and DSMs may be considered as candidate extrapolation models in addition to current practice. Further research into when these flexible models are most useful, and the role of external evidence to improve extrapolations is required.

Highlights

  • Estimates of future survival can be a key evidence source when deciding if a medical treatment should be funded

  • Simulation study For each model, the visual patterns of within-sample fit and extrapolations were broadly similar across the nine scenarios considered

  • Increasing the sample size led to a reduction in the variation of extrapolations as expected but had little other effect

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Estimates of future survival can be a key evidence source when deciding if a medical treatment should be funded. More flexible, survival models are available which can provide improved within-sample fit. This study aimed to assess if these emerging practice models provided improved extrapolations. Accurate extrapolations of future survival can be pivotal evidence sources for decision-makers when determining if a medical treatment should be funded. – which provides national guidance on if treatments should be funded – requires that all relevant health benefits of a treatment be quantified. This is to enable consistent and fair decision making across diverse treatments. Evidence on Kearns et al BMC Medical Research Methodology (2021) 21:263 treatment effectiveness was available for 2.9 years, and extrapolated to 25.2 years [2]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call