Abstract

Background and ObjectiveThe extrapolation of estimated hazard functions can be an important part of cost-effectiveness analyses. Given limited follow-up time in the sample data, it may be expected that the uncertainty in estimates of hazards increases the further into the future they are extrapolated. The objective of this study was to illustrate how the choice of parametric survival model impacts on estimates of uncertainty about extrapolated hazard functions and lifetime mean survival.MethodsWe examined seven commonly used parametric survival models and described analytical expressions and approximation methods (delta and multivariate normal) for estimating uncertainty. We illustrate the multivariate normal method using case studies based on four representative hypothetical datasets reflecting hazard functions commonly encountered in clinical practice (constant, increasing, decreasing, or unimodal), along with a hypothetical cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsDepending on the survival model chosen, the uncertainty in extrapolated hazard functions could be constant, increasing or decreasing over time for the case studies. Estimates of uncertainty in mean survival showed a large variation (up to sevenfold) for each case study. The magnitude of uncertainty in estimates of cost effectiveness, as measured using the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, varied threefold across plausible models. Differences in estimates of uncertainty were observed even when models provided near-identical point estimates.ConclusionsSurvival model choice can have a significant impact on estimates of uncertainty of extrapolated hazard functions, mean survival and cost effectiveness, even when point estimates were similar. We provide good practice recommendations for analysts and decision makers, emphasizing the importance of considering the plausibility of estimates of uncertainty in the extrapolated period as a complementary part of the model selection process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00853-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Estimates of lifetime mean survival are often a key component of cost-effectiveness analyses, as they typically quantify the benefits of new treatments

  • We provide recommendations on how the clinical plausibility of estimates of uncertainty about hazard functions and estimates of cost effectiveness should be used as part of the model selection process

  • We focus on the hazard function because it provides insights into the natural history of a disease along with any time-varying responses to treatment [8]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Estimates of lifetime mean survival are often a key component of cost-effectiveness analyses, as they typically quantify the benefits of new treatments. Extrapolation of hazard functions is often required to estimate lifetime mean survival This may be achieved by fitting commonly applied parametric survival models The objective of this study was to illustrate how the choice of parametric survival model impacts on estimates of uncertainty about extrapolated hazard functions and lifetime mean survival. We illustrate the multivariate normal method using case studies based on four representative hypothetical datasets reflecting hazard functions commonly encountered in clinical practice (constant, increasing, decreasing, or unimodal), along with a hypothetical cost-effectiveness analysis. Results Depending on the survival model chosen, the uncertainty in extrapolated hazard functions could be constant, increasing or decreasing over time for the case studies. Conclusions Survival model choice can have a significant impact on estimates of uncertainty of extrapolated hazard functions, mean survival and cost effectiveness, even when point estimates were similar. We provide good practice recommendations for analysts and decision makers, emphasizing the importance of considering the plausibility of estimates of uncertainty in the extrapolated period as a complementary part of the model selection process

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
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