- - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

thanks blame mostly to google translate
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

- - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

(thanks/blame mostly to Google Translate) Gianluca Baio University College London Department of Statistical Science g.baio@ucl.ac.uk


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Μπευζιανης ➭εθοδων στην οικονο➭ια της υγειας

(thanks/blame mostly to Google Translate)

Gianluca Baio

University College London Department of Statistical Science

g.baio@ucl.ac.uk http://www.ucl.ac.uk/statistics/research/statistics-health-economics/ http://www.statistica.it/gianluca https://github.com/giabaio

Research Seminars Department of Statistics Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens Thursday 3 May 2018

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 1 / 36

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples — you get to choose...

– Individual level & partially observed data – Survival analysis in HTA – Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 2 / 36

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples — you get to choose...

– Individual level & partially observed data – Survival analysis in HTA – Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 2 / 36

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples — you get to choose...

– Individual level & partially observed data – Survival analysis in HTA – Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 2 / 36

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples — you get to choose...

– Individual level & partially observed data – Survival analysis in HTA – Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 2 / 36

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Health technology assessment (HTA)

Objective: Combine costs & benefits of a given intervention into a rational scheme for allocating resources

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 3 / 36

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Health technology assessment (HTA)

Objective: Combine costs & benefits of a given intervention into a rational scheme for allocating resources Statistical model

  • Estimates relevant population

parameters θ

  • Varies with the type of

available data (& statistical approach!) Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 3 / 36

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Health technology assessment (HTA)

Objective: Combine costs & benefits of a given intervention into a rational scheme for allocating resources Statistical model Economic model

  • Estimates relevant population

parameters θ

  • Varies with the type of

available data (& statistical approach!)

  • Combines the parameters to obtain

a population average measure for costs and clinical benefits

  • Varies with the type of available

data & statistical model used ∆e = fe(θ) ∆c = fc(θ) . . . Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 3 / 36

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Health technology assessment (HTA)

Objective: Combine costs & benefits of a given intervention into a rational scheme for allocating resources Statistical model Economic model Decision analysis

  • Estimates relevant population

parameters θ

  • Varies with the type of

available data (& statistical approach!)

  • Combines the parameters to obtain

a population average measure for costs and clinical benefits

  • Varies with the type of available

data & statistical model used

  • Summarises the economic model

by computing suitable measures of “cost-effectiveness”

  • Dictates the best course of

actions, given current evidence

  • Standardised process

∆e = fe(θ) ∆c = fc(θ) . . . ICER = g(∆e, ∆c) EIB = h(∆e, ∆c; k) . . . Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 3 / 36

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Health technology assessment (HTA)

Objective: Combine costs & benefits of a given intervention into a rational scheme for allocating resources Statistical model Economic model Decision analysis Uncertainty analysis

  • Estimates relevant population

parameters θ

  • Varies with the type of

available data (& statistical approach!)

  • Combines the parameters to obtain

a population average measure for costs and clinical benefits

  • Varies with the type of available

data & statistical model used

  • Summarises the economic model

by computing suitable measures of “cost-effectiveness”

  • Dictates the best course of

actions, given current evidence

  • Standardised process
  • Assesses the impact of uncertainty (eg in

parameters or model structure) on the economic results

  • Mandatory in many jurisdictions (including

NICE, in the UK)

  • Fundamentally Bayesian!

∆e = fe(θ) ∆c = fc(θ) . . . ICER = g(∆e, ∆c) EIB = h(∆e, ∆c; k) . . . Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 3 / 36

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • 1. (“Standard”) Statistical modelling — Individual level data

Demographics HRQL data Resource use data Clinical outcome ID Trt Sex Age . . . u0 u1 . . . uJ c0 c1 . . . cJ y0 y1 . . . yJ 1 1 M 23 . . . 0.32 0.66 . . . 0.44 103 241 . . . 80 y10 y11 . . . y1J 2 1 M 21 . . . 0.12 0.16 . . . 0.38 1 204 1 808 . . . 877 y20 y21 . . . y2J 3 2 F 19 . . . 0.49 0.55 . . . 0.88 16 12 . . . 22 y30 y31 . . . y3J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yij = Survival time, event indicator (eg CVD), number of events, continuous measurement (eg blood pressure), . . . uij = Utility-based score to value health (eg EQ-5D, SF-36, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale, . . . ) cij = Use of resources (drugs, hospital, GP appointments, . . . )

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 4 / 36

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • 1. (“Standard”) Statistical modelling — Individual level data

Demographics HRQL data Resource use data Clinical outcome ID Trt Sex Age . . . u0 u1 . . . uJ c0 c1 . . . cJ y0 y1 . . . yJ 1 1 M 23 . . . 0.32 0.66 . . . 0.44 103 241 . . . 80 y10 y11 . . . y1J 2 1 M 21 . . . 0.12 0.16 . . . 0.38 1 204 1 808 . . . 877 y20 y21 . . . y2J 3 2 F 19 . . . 0.49 0.55 . . . 0.88 16 12 . . . 22 y30 y31 . . . y3J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yij = Survival time, event indicator (eg CVD), number of events, continuous measurement (eg blood pressure), . . . uij = Utility-based score to value health (eg EQ-5D, SF-36, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale, . . . ) cij = Use of resources (drugs, hospital, GP appointments, . . . )

1

Compute individual QALYs and total costs as ei =

J

  • j=1

(uij + uij−1) δj 2 and ci =

J

  • j=0

cij,

  • with: δj = Timej − Timej−1

Unit of time

  • Time (years)

Quality of life (scale 0-1) 2 4 6 8 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

δj uij +uij−1 2

QALYi = “Area under the curve”

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 4 / 36

slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • 1. (“Standard”) Statistical modelling — Individual level data

Demographics HRQL data Resource use data Clinical outcome ID Trt Sex Age . . . u0 u1 . . . uJ c0 c1 . . . cJ y0 y1 . . . yJ 1 1 M 23 . . . 0.32 0.66 . . . 0.44 103 241 . . . 80 y10 y11 . . . y1J 2 1 M 21 . . . 0.12 0.16 . . . 0.38 1 204 1 808 . . . 877 y20 y21 . . . y2J 3 2 F 19 . . . 0.49 0.55 . . . 0.88 16 12 . . . 22 y30 y31 . . . y3J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yij = Survival time, event indicator (eg CVD), number of events, continuous measurement (eg blood pressure), . . . uij = Utility-based score to value health (eg EQ-5D, SF-36, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale, . . . ) cij = Use of resources (drugs, hospital, GP appointments, . . . )

1

Compute individual QALYs and total costs as ei =

J

  • j=1

(uij + uij−1) δj 2 and ci =

J

  • j=0

cij,

  • with: δj = Timej − Timej−1

Unit of time

  • 2

(Often implicitly) assume normality and linearity and model independently individual QALYs and total costs by controlling for baseline values ei = αe0 + αe1u0i + αe2Trti + εei [+ . . .], εei ∼ Normal(0, σe) ci = αc0 + αc1c0i + αc2Trti + εci [+ . . .], εci ∼ Normal(0, σc)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 4 / 36

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • 1. (“Standard”) Statistical modelling — Individual level data

Demographics HRQL data Resource use data Clinical outcome ID Trt Sex Age . . . u0 u1 . . . uJ c0 c1 . . . cJ y0 y1 . . . yJ 1 1 M 23 . . . 0.32 0.66 . . . 0.44 103 241 . . . 80 y10 y11 . . . y1J 2 1 M 21 . . . 0.12 0.16 . . . 0.38 1 204 1 808 . . . 877 y20 y21 . . . y2J 3 2 F 19 . . . 0.49 0.55 . . . 0.88 16 12 . . . 22 y30 y31 . . . y3J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yij = Survival time, event indicator (eg CVD), number of events, continuous measurement (eg blood pressure), . . . uij = Utility-based score to value health (eg EQ-5D, SF-36, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale, . . . ) cij = Use of resources (drugs, hospital, GP appointments, . . . )

1

Compute individual QALYs and total costs as ei =

J

  • j=1

(uij + uij−1) δj 2 and ci =

J

  • j=0

cij,

  • with: δj = Timej − Timej−1

Unit of time

  • 2

(Often implicitly) assume normality and linearity and model independently individual QALYs and total costs by controlling for baseline values ei = αe0 + αe1u0i + αe2Trti + εei [+ . . .], εei ∼ Normal(0, σe) ci = αc0 + αc1c0i + αc2Trti + εci [+ . . .], εci ∼ Normal(0, σc)

3

Estimate population average cost and effectiveness differentials and use bootstrap to quantify uncertainty

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 4 / 36

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • 1. (“Standard”) Statistical modelling — Aggregated level data

1

Build a population level model (eg decision tree/Markov model)

Prophylactic NIs? No Yes Yes (p1) No (1 − p1) Cost with NIs + cost influenza Cost with NIs Yes (p0) No (1 − p0) Cost influenza Cost with no NIs Outcomes µe1 = −lp1 µe0 = −lp0 µc1 =

  • cNI + cInf

p1 + cNI (1 − p1) µc0 =

  • cNI + cInf

p0 + cNI (1 − p0)

NB: in this case, the “data” are typically represented by summary statistics for the parameters of interest θ = (p0, p1, l, . . .), but may also have access to a combination

  • f ILD and summaries

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 5 / 36

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • 1. (“Standard”) Statistical modelling — Aggregated level data

1

Build a population level model (eg decision tree/Markov model)

Prophylactic NIs? No Yes Yes (p1) No (1 − p1) Cost with NIs + cost influenza Cost with NIs Yes (p0) No (1 − p0) Cost influenza Cost with no NIs Outcomes µe1 = −lp1 µe0 = −lp0 µc1 =

  • cNI + cInf

p1 + cNI (1 − p1) µc0 =

  • cNI + cInf

p0 + cNI (1 − p0)

NB: in this case, the “data” are typically represented by summary statistics for the parameters of interest θ = (p0, p1, l, . . .), but may also have access to a combination

  • f ILD and summaries

2

Use point estimates for the parameters to build the “base-case” (average) evaluation

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 5 / 36

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • 1. (“Standard”) Statistical modelling — Aggregated level data

1

Build a population level model (eg decision tree/Markov model)

Prophylactic NIs? No Yes Yes (p1) No (1 − p1) Cost with NIs + cost influenza Cost with NIs Yes (p0) No (1 − p0) Cost influenza Cost with no NIs Outcomes µe1 = −lp1 µe0 = −lp0 µc1 =

  • cNI + cInf

p1 + cNI (1 − p1) µc0 =

  • cNI + cInf

p0 + cNI (1 − p0)

NB: in this case, the “data” are typically represented by summary statistics for the parameters of interest θ = (p0, p1, l, . . .), but may also have access to a combination

  • f ILD and summaries

2

Use point estimates for the parameters to build the “base-case” (average) evaluation

3

Use resampling methods (eg bootstrap) to propage uncertainty in the point estimates and perform uncertainty analysis

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 5 / 36

slide-18
SLIDE 18

“Standard” approach to HTA — “Two-stage”

Statistical model Economic model Decision analysis Uncertainty analysis

  • Estimates relevant population

parameters θ

  • Varies with the type of

available data (& statistical approach!)

  • Combines the parameters to obtain

a population average measure for costs and clinical benefits

  • Varies with the type of available

data & statistical model used

  • Summarises the economic model by

computing suitable measures of “cost-effectiveness”

  • Dictates the best course of actions,

given current evidence

  • Standardised process
  • Assesses the impact of uncertainty (eg

in parameters or model structure) on the economic results

  • Mandatory in many jurisdictions

(including NICE, in the UK)

  • Fundamentally Bayesian!
  • 1. Estimation (base-case)

θ y p(y | θ) ˆ θ = f(Y )

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 6 / 36

slide-19
SLIDE 19

“Standard” approach to HTA — “Two-stage”

Statistical model Economic model Decision analysis Uncertainty analysis

  • Estimates relevant population

parameters θ

  • Varies with the type of

available data (& statistical approach!)

  • Combines the parameters to obtain

a population average measure for costs and clinical benefits

  • Varies with the type of available

data & statistical model used

  • Summarises the economic model by

computing suitable measures of “cost-effectiveness”

  • Dictates the best course of actions,

given current evidence

  • Standardised process
  • Assesses the impact of uncertainty (eg

in parameters or model structure) on the economic results

  • Mandatory in many jurisdictions

(including NICE, in the UK)

  • Fundamentally Bayesian!
  • 1. Estimation (base-case)

θ y p(y | θ) ˆ θ = f(Y )

“Two-stage approach” (Spiegelhalter, Abrams & Myles, 2004)

  • 2. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis

⇒ θ p(θ) g(ˆ θ)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 6 / 36

slide-20
SLIDE 20

2./3. Economic modelling+Decision analysis — base-case scenario

Cost-effectiveness plane

Effectiveness differential Cost differential

∆e ∆c

∆e = E[e | ˆ θ1]

  • ˆ

µe1

− E[e | ˆ θ0]

  • ˆ

µe0

∆c = E[c | ˆ θ1]

  • ˆ

µc1

− E[c | ˆ θ0]

  • ˆ

µc0

ICER = E[∆c] E[∆e] = ˆ µc1 − ˆ µc0 ˆ µe1 − ˆ µe0 = Cost per outcome

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 7 / 36

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • 4. Uncertainty analysis

Cost-effectiveness plane ∆e ∆c

Effectiveness differential Cost differential ∆e = E[e | θ1]

  • µe1

− E[e | θ0]

  • µe0

∆c = E[c | θ1]

  • µc1

− E[c | θ0]

  • µc0
  • Gianluca Baio (UCL)

Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 7 / 36

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Bayesian approach to HTA

Statistical model Economic model Decision analysis Uncertainty analysis

  • Estimates relevant population

parameters θ

  • Varies with the type of

available data (& statistical approach!)

  • Combines the parameters to obtain

a population average measure for costs and clinical benefits

  • Varies with the type of available

data & statistical model used

  • Summarises the economic model by

computing suitable measures of “cost-effectiveness”

  • Dictates the best course of actions,

given current evidence

  • Standardised process
  • Assesses the impact of uncertainty (eg

in parameters or model structure) on the economic results

  • Mandatory in many jurisdictions

(including NICE, in the UK)

  • Fundamentally Bayesian!

Estimation & PSA (one stage) θ y p(y | θ) p(θ) p(θ | y)

“Integrated approach” Spiegelhalter, Abrams & Myles (2004) Baio, Berardi & Heath (2017) Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 8 / 36

slide-23
SLIDE 23

2./3./4. Economic modelling+Decision analysis+Uncertainty analysis

Cost-effectiveness plane

Effectiveness differential Cost differential

∆e ∆c

∆e = E[e | θ1]

  • µe1

− E[e | θ0]

  • µe0

∆c = E[c | θ1]

  • µc1

− E[c | θ0]

  • µc0

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 9 / 36

slide-24
SLIDE 24

2./3./4. Economic modelling+Decision analysis+Uncertainty analysis

Cost-effectiveness plane

∆e = E[e | θ1]

  • µe1

− E[e | θ0]

  • µe0

∆c = E[c | θ1]

  • µc1

− E[c | θ0]

  • µc0

Effectiveness differential Cost differential

∆e ∆c ICER = E[∆c] E[∆e] = E[µc1] − E[µc0] E[µe1] − E[µe0] = Cost per outcome

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 9 / 36

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Bayesians do it better...

  • Potential correlation between costs & clinical benefits

[Both ILD and ALD]

– Strong positive correlation — effective treatments are innovative and result from intensive and lengthy research ⇒ are associated with higher unit costs – Negative correlation — more effective treatments may reduce total care pathway costs e.g. by reducing hospitalisations, side effects, etc. – Because of the way in which standard models are set up, bootstrapping generally only approximates the underlying level of correlation — MCMC does a better job!

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 10 / 36

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Bayesians do it better...

  • Potential correlation between costs & clinical benefits

[Both ILD and ALD]

– Strong positive correlation — effective treatments are innovative and result from intensive and lengthy research ⇒ are associated with higher unit costs – Negative correlation — more effective treatments may reduce total care pathway costs e.g. by reducing hospitalisations, side effects, etc. – Because of the way in which standard models are set up, bootstrapping generally only approximates the underlying level of correlation — MCMC does a better job!

  • Joint/marginal normality not realistic

[Mainly ILD]

– Costs usually skewed and benefits may be bounded in [0; 1] – Can use transformation (e.g. logs) — but care is needed when back transforming to the natural scale – Should use more suitable models (e.g. Beta, Gamma or log-Normal) — generally easier under a Bayesian framework

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 10 / 36

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Bayesians do it better...

  • Potential correlation between costs & clinical benefits

[Both ILD and ALD]

– Strong positive correlation — effective treatments are innovative and result from intensive and lengthy research ⇒ are associated with higher unit costs – Negative correlation — more effective treatments may reduce total care pathway costs e.g. by reducing hospitalisations, side effects, etc. – Because of the way in which standard models are set up, bootstrapping generally only approximates the underlying level of correlation — MCMC does a better job!

  • Joint/marginal normality not realistic

[Mainly ILD]

– Costs usually skewed and benefits may be bounded in [0; 1] – Can use transformation (e.g. logs) — but care is needed when back transforming to the natural scale – Should use more suitable models (e.g. Beta, Gamma or log-Normal) — generally easier under a Bayesian framework

  • Particularly as the focus is on decision-making (rather than just inference), we need

to use all available evidence to fully characterise current uncertainty on the model parameters and outcomes

[Mainly ALD]

– A Bayesian approach is helpful in combining different sources of information – Propagating uncertainty is a fundamentally Bayesian operation!

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 10 / 36

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Bayesians do it better...

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 10 / 36

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples

– Individual level & partially observed data

ILD+Missing data

– Survival analysis in HTA

Survival analysis

– Value of information

Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 11 / 36

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Bayesian HTA in action — Individual level (& missing) data

  • In general, can represent the joint distribution as p(e, c) = p(e)p(c | e) = p(c)p(e | c)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 12 / 36

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Bayesian HTA in action — Individual level (& missing) data

  • In general, can represent the joint distribution as p(e, c) = p(e)p(c | e) = p(c)p(e | c)

ei φie τe µe [. . .]

Marginal model for e

ei ∼ p(e | φei, τe) ge(φei) = α0 [+ . . .] µe = g−1

e

(α0) φei = location τe = ancillary

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 12 / 36

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Bayesian HTA in action — Individual level (& missing) data

  • In general, can represent the joint distribution as p(e, c) = p(e)p(c | e) = p(c)p(e | c)

ci φic τc µc [. . .] ei φie τe µe [. . .] β1

Conditional model for c Marginal model for e

ei ∼ p(e | φei, τe) ge(φei) = α0 [+ . . .] µe = g−1

e

(α0) φei = location τe = ancillary φci = location τc = ancillary ci ∼ p(c | e, φci, τc) gc(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .] µc = g−1

c

(β0)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 12 / 36

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Bayesian HTA in action — Individual level (& missing) data

  • In general, can represent the joint distribution as p(e, c) = p(e)p(c | e) = p(c)p(e | c)

ci φic τc µc [. . .] ei φie τe µe [. . .] β1

Conditional model for c Marginal model for e

ei ∼ p(e | φei, τe) ge(φei) = α0 [+ . . .] µe = g−1

e

(α0) φei = marginal mean τe = marginal variance φci = conditional mean τc = conditional variance ci ∼ p(c | e, φci, τc) gc(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .] µc = g−1

c

(β0)

  • For example:

ei ∼ Normal(φei, τe), φei = α0 [+ . . . ], µe = α0 ci | ei ∼ Normal(φci, τc), φci = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .], µc = β0

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 12 / 36

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Bayesian HTA in action — Individual level (& missing) data

  • In general, can represent the joint distribution as p(e, c) = p(e)p(c | e) = p(c)p(e | c)

ci φic τc µc [. . .] ei φie τe µe [. . .] β1

Conditional model for c Marginal model for e

ei ∼ p(e | φei, τe) ge(φei) = α0 [+ . . .] µe = g−1

e

(α0) φei = marginal mean τe = marginal scale φci = conditional mean τc = shape τc/φci = rate ci ∼ p(c | e, φci, τc) gc(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .] µc = g−1

c

(β0)

  • For example:

ei ∼ Beta(φeiτe, (1 − φei)τe), logit(φei) = α0 [+ . . . ], µe =

exp(α0) 1+exp(α0)

ci | ei ∼ Gamma(τc, τc/φci), log(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .], µc = exp(β0)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 12 / 36

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Bayesian HTA in action — Individual level (& missing) data

  • In general, can represent the joint distribution as p(e, c) = p(e)p(c | e) = p(c)p(e | c)

ci φic τc µc [. . .] ei φie τe µe [. . .] β1

Conditional model for c Marginal model for e

ei ∼ p(e | φei, τe) ge(φei) = α0 [+ . . .] µe = g−1

e

(α0) φei = marginal mean τe = marginal scale φci = conditional mean τc = shape τc/φci = rate ci ∼ p(c | e, φci, τc) gc(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .] µc = g−1

c

(β0)

  • For example:

ei ∼ Beta(φeiτe, (1 − φei)τe), logit(φei) = α0 [+ . . . ], µe =

exp(α0) 1+exp(α0)

ci | ei ∼ Gamma(τc, τc/φci), log(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .], µc = exp(β0)

  • Combining “modules” and fully characterising uncertainty about deterministic

functions of random quantities is relatively straightforward using MCMC

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 12 / 36

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Bayesian HTA in action — Individual level (& missing) data

  • In general, can represent the joint distribution as p(e, c) = p(e)p(c | e) = p(c)p(e | c)

ci φic τc µc [. . .] ei φie τe µe [. . .] β1

Conditional model for c Marginal model for e

ei ∼ p(e | φei, τe) ge(φei) = α0 [+ . . .] µe = g−1

e

(α0) φei = marginal mean τe = marginal scale φci = conditional mean τc = shape τc/φci = rate ci ∼ p(c | e, φci, τc) gc(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .] µc = g−1

c

(β0)

  • For example:

ei ∼ Beta(φeiτe, (1 − φei)τe), logit(φei) = α0 [+ . . . ], µe =

exp(α0) 1+exp(α0)

ci | ei ∼ Gamma(τc, τc/φci), log(φci) = β0 + β1(ei − µe) [+ . . .], µc = exp(β0)

  • Combining “modules” and fully characterising uncertainty about deterministic

functions of random quantities is relatively straightforward using MCMC

  • Prior information can help stabilise inference (especially with sparse data!), eg

– Cancer patients are unlikely to survive as long as the general population – ORs are unlikely to be greater than ±5

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 12 / 36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Example: MenSS trial

  • The MenSS pilot RCT evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a new digital intervention

to reduce the incidence of STI in young men with respect to the SOC

– QALYs calculated from utilities (EQ-5D 3L) – Total costs calculated from different components (no baseline)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 13 / 36

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Example: MenSS trial

Partially observed data

  • The MenSS pilot RCT evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a new digital intervention

to reduce the incidence of STI in young men with respect to the SOC

– QALYs calculated from utilities (EQ-5D 3L) – Total costs calculated from different components (no baseline) Time Type of outcome

  • bserved (%)
  • bserved (%)

Control (n1=75) Intervention (n2=84) Baseline utilities 72 (96%) 72 (86%) 3 months utilities and costs 34 (45%) 23 (27%) 6 months utilities and costs 35 (47%) 23 (27%) 12 months utilities and costs 43 (57%) 36 (43%) Complete cases utilities and costs 27 (44%) 19 (23%)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 13 / 36

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Example: MenSS trial

Skewness & “structural values”

  • The MenSS pilot RCT evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a new digital intervention

to reduce the incidence of STI in young men with respect to the SOC

– QALYs calculated from utilities (EQ-5D 3L) – Total costs calculated from different components (no baseline)

QALYs Frequency 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2 4 6 8 10 n1 = 27 mean = 0.904 median = 0.930 costs (£) Frequency 200 400 600 800 1000 2 4 6 8 10 n1 = 27 mean = 186 median = 176 QALYs Frequency 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2 4 6 8 10 n2 = 19 mean = 0.902 median = 0.940 costs (£) Frequency 200 400 600 800 1000 2 4 6 8 10 n2 = 19 mean = 208 median = 123

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 13 / 36

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Modelling

Gabrio et al. (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09541

1

Bivariate Normal

– Simpler and closer to “standard” frequentist model – Account for correlation between QALYs and costs cit φict ψct µct βt eit φiet ψet µet u∗

0it

αt

Marginal model for e eit ∼ Normal(φeit, ψet) φeit = µet + αt(u0it − ¯ u0t) φeit = µet + αtu∗

0it

Conditional model for c | e cit | eit ∼ Normal(φcit, ψct) φcit = µct + βt(eit − µet)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 14 / 36

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Modelling

Gabrio et al. (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09541

1

Bivariate Normal

– Simpler and closer to “standard” frequentist model – Account for correlation between QALYs and costs

2

Beta-Gamma

– Account for correlation between outcomes – Model the relevant ranges: QALYs ∈ (0, 1) and costs ∈ (0, ∞) – But: needs to rescale observed data e∗

it = (eit − ǫ) to avoid spikes at 1

cit φict ψct µct βt e∗

it

φiet ψet µet u∗

0it

αt

Marginal model for e∗ e∗

it ∼ Beta (φeitψet, (1 − φeit)ψet)

logit(φeit) = µet + αt(u0it − ¯ u0t) φeit = µet + αtu∗

0it

Conditional model for c | e∗ cit | e∗

it ∼ Gamma(ψctφcit, ψct)

log(φcit) = µct + βt(e∗

it − µet) Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 14 / 36

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Modelling

Gabrio et al. (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09541

1

Bivariate Normal

– Simpler and closer to “standard” frequentist model – Account for correlation between QALYs and costs

2

Beta-Gamma

– Account for correlation between outcomes – Model the relevant ranges: QALYs ∈ (0, 1) and costs ∈ (0, ∞) – But: needs to rescale observed data e∗

it = (eit − ǫ) to avoid spikes at 1

3

Hurdle model

– Model eit as a mixture to account for correlation between outcomes, model the relevant ranges and account for structural values – May expand to account for partially observed baseline utility u0it cit φict ψct µct βt e<1

it

φiet ψet µ<1

et

u∗

0it

αt e1

it

e∗

it

πit dit Xit ηt µet

Model for the structural ones dit := I(eit = 1) ∼ Bernoulli(πit) logit(πit) = Xitηt Mixture model for e e1

it := 1

e<1

it

∼ Beta (φeitψet, (1 − φeit)ψet) logit(φeit) = µ<1

et

+ αt(u0it − ¯ u0t) logit(φeit) = µ<1

et

+ αtu∗

0it

e∗

it = πite1 it + (1 − πit)e<1 it

µet = (1 − ¯ πt)µ<1

et

+ ¯ πt Conditional model for c | e∗ cit | e∗

it ∼ Gamma(ψctφcit, ψct)

log(φcit) = µct + βt(e∗

it − µet) Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 14 / 36

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Modelling

Gabrio et al. (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09541

1

Bivariate Normal

– Simpler and closer to “standard” frequentist model – Account for correlation between QALYs and costs

2

Beta-Gamma

– Account for correlation between outcomes – Model the relevant ranges: QALYs ∈ (0, 1) and costs ∈ (0, ∞) – But: needs to rescale observed data e∗

it = (eit − ǫ) to avoid spikes at 1

3

Hurdle model

– Model eit as a mixture to account for correlation between outcomes, model the relevant ranges and account for structural values – May expand to account for partially observed baseline utility u0it cit φict ψct µct βt e<1

it

φiet ψet µ<1

et

u∗

0it

αt e1

it

e∗

it

πit dit Xit ηt µet

Model for the structural ones dit := I(eit = 1) ∼ Bernoulli(πit) logit(πit) = Xitηt Mixture model for e e1

it := 1

e<1

it

∼ Beta (φeitψet, (1 − φeit)ψet) logit(φeit) = µ<1

et

+ αt(u0it − ¯ u0t) logit(φeit) = µ<1

et

+ αtu∗

0it

e∗

it = πite1 it + (1 − πit)e<1 it

µet = (1 − ¯ πt)µ<1

et

+ ¯ πt Conditional model for c | e∗ cit | e∗

it ∼ Gamma(ψctφcit, ψct)

log(φcit) = µct + βt(e∗

it − µet) Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 14 / 36

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Modelling

Gabrio et al. (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.09541

1

Bivariate Normal

– Simpler and closer to “standard” frequentist model – Account for correlation between QALYs and costs

2

Beta-Gamma

– Account for correlation between outcomes – Model the relevant ranges: QALYs ∈ (0, 1) and costs ∈ (0, ∞) – But: needs to rescale observed data e∗

it = (eit − ǫ) to avoid spikes at 1

3

Hurdle model

– Model eit as a mixture to account for correlation between outcomes, model the relevant ranges and account for structural values – May expand to account for partially observed baseline utility u0it cit φict ψct µct βt e<1

it

φiet ψet µ<1

et

u∗

0it

αt e1

it

e∗

it

πit dit Xit ηt µet

Model for the structural ones dit := I(eit = 1) ∼ Bernoulli(πit) logit(πit) = Xitηt Mixture model for e e1

it := 1

e<1

it

∼ Beta (φeitψet, (1 − φeit)ψet) logit(φeit) = µ<1

et

+ αt(u0it − ¯ u0t) logit(φeit) = µ<1

et

+ αtu∗

0it

e∗

it = πite1 it + (1 − πit)e<1 it

µet = (1 − ¯ πt)µ<1

et

+ ¯ πt Conditional model for c | e∗ cit | e∗

it ∼ Gamma(ψctφcit, ψct)

log(φcit) = µct + βt(e∗

it − µet) Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 14 / 36

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Results

Complete only vs all cases

Hurdle Model mean (90% HPD) 0.90 (0.88; 0.93) 0.88 (0.85; 0.91) Beta−Gamma 0.88 (0.86; 0.91) 0.88 (0.85; 0.90) 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bivariate Normal 0.90 (0.88; 0.93) 0.87 (0.85; 0.90)

QALYs

Hurdle Model mean (90% HPD) 0.90 (0.87; 0.94) 0.90 (0.86; 0.94) Beta−Gamma 0.88 (0.85; 0.92) 0.91 (0.88; 0.94) 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bivariate Normal 0.90 (0.87; 0.94) 0.92 (0.88; 0.95)

QALYs

Control Intervention

Complete cases only All cases (missing at random, MAR)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 15 / 36

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Results

Complete only vs all cases

Hurdle Model mean (90% HPD) 220 (118; 329) 198 (111; 282) Beta−Gamma 231 (105; 347) 200 (111; 286) 200 400 600 Bivariate Normal 207 (128; 288) 234 (154; 321)

costs (£)

Hurdle Model mean (90% HPD) 234 (93; 377) 193 (84; 307) Beta−Gamma 228 (91; 363) 189 (83; 303) 200 400 600 Bivariate Normal 190 (123; 254) 187 (122; 256)

costs (£)

Control Intervention

Complete cases only All cases (missing at random, MAR)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 15 / 36

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Bayesian multiple imputation (under MAR)

QALY values 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

  • QALY values

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

  • ●●
  • ● ●●
  • QALY values

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

  • QALY values

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

  • ●● ●
  • ●●●●
  • ●●
  • ●●●● ●●
  • ●● ●
  • ●●
  • ●●●
  • QALY values

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

  • QALY values

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

  • ●●
  • ● ●●
  • Bivariate Normal

Individuals (n1 = 75) Individuals (n2 = 84)

Beta-Gamma

Individuals (n1 = 75) Individuals (n2 = 84)

Hurdle model

Individuals (n1 = 75) Individuals (n2 = 84) —

  • — Imputed, observed baseline

  • — Imputed, missing baseline

× Observed

End Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 16 / 36

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples

– Individual level & partially observed data – Survival analysis in HTA

Survival analysis

– Value of information

Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 17 / 36

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Survival analysis in HTA

Trial data — Kaplan Meier curves

  • Survival data are often the main outcome in clinical studies relevant for HTA

– Cancer drugs (progression-free/overall survival time): ≈ 40% of NICE appraisals! – Need to extrapolate, for economic modelling purposes. BUT: Limited follow up from trials, not consistent with time horizon of economic model

  • time

Survival as.factor(arm)=0 as.factor(arm)=1 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 18 / 36

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Survival analysis in HTA

Median time: t : S(t) = 0.5

  • Survival data are often the main outcome in clinical studies relevant for HTA

– Cancer drugs (progression-free/overall survival time): ≈ 40% of NICE appraisals! – Need to extrapolate, for economic modelling purposes. BUT: Limited follow up from trials, not consistent with time horizon of economic model

  • time

Survival as.factor(arm)=0 as.factor(arm)=1 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Kaplan Meier Weibull

  • 8.33

11.54 Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 18 / 36

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Survival analysis in HTA

Mean time:

∞ S(t)dt

  • Survival data are often the main outcome in clinical studies relevant for HTA

– Cancer drugs (progression-free/overall survival time): ≈ 40% of NICE appraisals! – Need to extrapolate, for economic modelling purposes. BUT: Limited follow up from trials, not consistent with time horizon of economic model

  • time

Survival as.factor(arm)=0 as.factor(arm)=1 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Kaplan Meier Weibull

9.09 10.34 Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 18 / 36

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Survival analysis in HTA

...To be or not to be (Bayesian)?...

  • Survival data are often the main outcome in clinical studies relevant for HTA

– Cancer drugs (progression-free/overall survival time): ≈ 40% of NICE appraisals! – Need to extrapolate, for economic modelling purposes. BUT: Limited follow up from trials, not consistent with time horizon of economic model

  • When there is strong correlation among the survival parameters, the results of

uncertainty analysis may be (strongly) biased under a more simplistic frequentist model

– This matters most in health economics, because this bias carries over the economic modelling, optimal decision making and assessment of the impact of parametric uncertainty! – A full Bayesian approach propagates directly correlation and uncertainty in the model parameters through to the survival curves and the economic model

  • For more complex models, MLE-based estimates may fail to converge

– This may be an issue for multi-parameter models, where limited data (not compounded by relevant prior information) are not enough to fit all the model parameters – NB: you would normally need to fit more complex models for cases where the survival curves are “strange” and so the usual parametric models fail to provide sufficient fit

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 18 / 36

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Survival analysis in HTA

...To be or not to be (Bayesian)?...

  • Survival data are often the main outcome in clinical studies relevant for HTA

– Cancer drugs (progression-free/overall survival time): ≈ 40% of NICE appraisals! – Need to extrapolate, for economic modelling purposes. BUT: Limited follow up from trials, not consistent with time horizon of economic model

Model fit for the Generalised F model , obtained using Flexsurvreg (Maximum Likelihood Estimate). Running time: 1.157 seconds mean se L95% U95% mu 2.29139696 0.0798508 2.13489e+00 2.44790e+00 sigma 0.58729598 0.0725044 4.61076e-01 7.48069e-01 Q 0.84874994 0.2506424 3.57500e-01 1.34000e+00 P 0.00268265 0.0902210 6.33197e-32 1.13655e+26 as.factor(arm)1 0.34645851 0.0877892 1.74395e-01 5.18522e-01 Model fit for the Generalised F model , obtained using Stan (Bayesian inference via Hamiltonian Monte Carlo). Running time: 26.692 seconds mean se L95% U95% mu 2.256760 0.3455163 0.0897086 0.0865904 sigma 0.507861 0.0762112 0.3608566 0.6582047 Q 0.700062 0.3358360 0.0786118 1.3880582 P 1.131968 0.5837460 0.3908284 2.6342762 as.factor(arm)1 0.345516 0.0865904 0.1745665 0.5176818

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 18 / 36

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Example: ICD & cardiac death

Benaglia et al, Stat in Med (2015)

Set up/interventions

  • ICD (Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators) compared to anti-arrhythmic drugs

(AAD) for prevention of sudden cardiac death in people with cardiac arrhythmia

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 19 / 36

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Example: ICD & cardiac death

Benaglia et al, Stat in Med (2015)

Set up/interventions

  • ICD (Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators) compared to anti-arrhythmic drugs

(AAD) for prevention of sudden cardiac death in people with cardiac arrhythmia Data

  • Individual data from cohort of 535 UK cardiac arrhythmia patients implanted with

ICDs between 1991 and 2002

  • Meta-analysis of three (non-UK) RCTs providing published HRs

– Relatively short-term follow-up: approximately 75% people, followed for less than 5 years, maximum 10 years

  • UK population mortality statistics by age, sex, cause of death

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 19 / 36

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Example: ICD & cardiac death

Benaglia et al, Stat in Med (2015)

Set up/interventions

  • ICD (Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators) compared to anti-arrhythmic drugs

(AAD) for prevention of sudden cardiac death in people with cardiac arrhythmia Data

  • Individual data from cohort of 535 UK cardiac arrhythmia patients implanted with

ICDs between 1991 and 2002

  • Meta-analysis of three (non-UK) RCTs providing published HRs

– Relatively short-term follow-up: approximately 75% people, followed for less than 5 years, maximum 10 years

  • UK population mortality statistics by age, sex, cause of death

Objective

  • Estimate the survival curve over the lifetime of ICD and AAD patients in UK
  • Extrapolate the output to inform the wider economic model

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 19 / 36

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Basic idea

Use UK population data (matched by age/sex) to “anchor” the ICD population risk

  • time

Survival 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 UK population data ICD cohort survival Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 20 / 36

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Basic idea

Use UK population data (matched by age/sex) to “anchor” the ICD population risk

  • Perhaps the easiest way of doing this anchoring is to relate the hazards between the

two populations — eg proportional hazard ratio: hICD(t) = eβhUK(t) ⇔ HR = hICD(t) hUK(t) = eβ = Constant

  • Relatively easy to model — but probably very unrealistic!

– ICD patients are at (much?) greater risk of arrhythmia death – If the proportion of deaths caused by arrythmia changes over time, we would induce bias, because we would be extrapolate a constant HR for all causes mortality

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 20 / 36

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Basic idea

Demiris et al, Stat Meth Med Res (2015)

Use UK population data (matched by age/sex) to “anchor” the ICD population risk

  • Perhaps the easiest way of doing this anchoring is to relate the hazards between the

two populations — eg proportional hazard ratio: hICD(t) = eβhUK(t) ⇔ HR = hICD(t) hUK(t) = eβ = Constant

  • Relatively easy to model — but probably very unrealistic!

– ICD patients are at (much?) greater risk of arrhythmia death – If the proportion of deaths caused by arrythmia changes over time, we would induce bias, because we would be extrapolate a constant HR for all causes mortality

  • Formally account for multiple mortality causes (Poly-Weibull model):

hICD(t) = harr

ICD(t) + hoth ICD(t)

= eβharr

UK(t) + hoth UK(t)

= eβα1µ1tα1−1 + α2µ2tα2−1

  • This assumes that:

– Arrhythmia hazard is proportional to matched UK population – Other causes hazard is identical to matched UK population

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 20 / 36

slide-60
SLIDE 60

You don’t know what you’re doing!...

https://youtu.be/fOSU59DP760

  • To set up a full Bayesian model including a reasonable specification of the priors can

be a hard task

  • Often people claim that they have “no prior information”.

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 21 / 36

slide-61
SLIDE 61

You don’t know what you’re doing!...

https://youtu.be/fOSU59DP760

  • To set up a full Bayesian model including a reasonable specification of the priors can

be a hard task

  • Often people claim that they have “no prior information”. But don’t they?...

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 21 / 36

slide-62
SLIDE 62

You don’t know what you’re doing!...

https://youtu.be/fOSU59DP760

  • To set up a full Bayesian model including a reasonable specification of the priors can

be a hard task

  • Often people claim that they have “no prior information”. But don’t they?...
  • In the ICD case, age at entry is around 60 — we know that people won’t survive for

more than other 60 years

– Setting a prior for the scale µi ∼ Uniform(0, 100) implies that the prior mean survival

  • f the resulting Weibull distribution is

µiΓ

  • 1 + 1

α

  • < 60
  • Can also include some knowledge on the shape α and the coefficient β to limit their

variations in reasonable ranges

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 21 / 36

slide-63
SLIDE 63

Results

  • Ignoring cause-specific mortality (Weibull) results in larger bias, especially for females

(because the arrhythmia proportion of deaths does vary over time in that subgroup)

End Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 22 / 36

slide-64
SLIDE 64

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples

– Individual level & partially observed data

ILD+Missing data

– Survival analysis in HTA – Value of information

Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 23 / 36

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Knowledge is power?...

(A tale of two stupid examples) ↔ ↔

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 24 / 36

slide-66
SLIDE 66

Knowledge is power?...

(A tale of two stupid examples)

  • Example 1: Intervention t = 1 is the most cost-effective, given

current evidence

– Pr(t = 1 is cost-effective) = 0.51 – If we get it wrong: Increase in costs = ↔3 If we get it wrong: Decrease in effectiveness = 0.000001 QALYs – Large uncertainty/negligible consequences ⇒ can afford uncertainty ↔

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 24 / 36

slide-67
SLIDE 67

Knowledge is power?...

(A tale of two stupid examples)

  • Example 1: Intervention t = 1 is the most cost-effective, given

current evidence

– Pr(t = 1 is cost-effective) = 0.51 – If we get it wrong: Increase in costs = ↔3 If we get it wrong: Decrease in effectiveness = 0.000001 QALYs – Large uncertainty/negligible consequences ⇒ can afford uncertainty

  • Example 2: Intervention t = 1 is the most cost-effective, given

current evidence

– Pr(t = 1 is cost-effective) = 0.999 – If we get it wrong: Increase in costs = ↔1 000 000 000 If we get it wrong: Decrease in effectiveness = 999999 QALYs – Tiny uncertainty/dire consequences ⇒ probably should think about it...

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 24 / 36

slide-68
SLIDE 68

Evidence Based Decision-Making and Value of Information (VoI)

Combine all available evidence (efficacy, economic, utility, natural history) Make decision (adopt/reject/carry

  • ut further research)

Design and run studies to collect

  • ut more evidence)
  • 1. Systematic

Review

  • 2. Evidence

Synthesis

  • 3. Cost-effectiveness

analysis

  • 4. VoI

Analysis

  • 5. Trial/

Study Design

  • 6. Statistical

Analysis/ Publication Process inherently Bayesian!

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 25 / 36

slide-69
SLIDE 69

VoI: Basic idea

  • A new study will provide new data

– Reducing (or even eliminating) uncertainty in a subset of model parameters

  • Update the cost-effectiveness model

– If the optimal decision changes, gain in monetary net benefit (NB = utility) from using new optimal treatment – If optimal decision unchanged, no gain in NB

  • Expected VOI is the average gain in NB

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 26 / 36

slide-70
SLIDE 70

VoI: Basic idea and relevant measures

  • A new study will provide new data

– Reducing (or even eliminating) uncertainty in a subset of model parameters

  • Update the cost-effectiveness model

– If the optimal decision changes, gain in monetary net benefit (NB = utility) from using new optimal treatment – If optimal decision unchanged, no gain in NB

  • Expected VOI is the average gain in NB

1

Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI)

– Value of completely resolving uncertainty in all input parameters to decision model – Infinite-sized long-term follow-up trial measuring everything! – Gives an upper-bound on the value of new study — if EVPI is low, suggests we can make our decision based on existing information

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 26 / 36

slide-71
SLIDE 71

VoI: Basic idea and relevant measures

  • A new study will provide new data

– Reducing (or even eliminating) uncertainty in a subset of model parameters

  • Update the cost-effectiveness model

– If the optimal decision changes, gain in monetary net benefit (NB = utility) from using new optimal treatment – If optimal decision unchanged, no gain in NB

  • Expected VOI is the average gain in NB

1

Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI)

– Value of completely resolving uncertainty in all input parameters to decision model – Infinite-sized long-term follow-up trial measuring everything! – Gives an upper-bound on the value of new study — if EVPI is low, suggests we can make our decision based on existing information

2

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information (EVPPI)

– Value of eliminating uncertainty in subset of input parameters to decision model – Infinite-sized trial measuring relative effects on 1-year survival – Useful to identify which parameters responsible for decision uncertainty

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 26 / 36

slide-72
SLIDE 72

VoI: Basic idea and relevant measures

  • A new study will provide new data

– Reducing (or even eliminating) uncertainty in a subset of model parameters

  • Update the cost-effectiveness model

– If the optimal decision changes, gain in monetary net benefit (NB = utility) from using new optimal treatment – If optimal decision unchanged, no gain in NB

  • Expected VOI is the average gain in NB

1

Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI)

– Value of completely resolving uncertainty in all input parameters to decision model – Infinite-sized long-term follow-up trial measuring everything! – Gives an upper-bound on the value of new study — if EVPI is low, suggests we can make our decision based on existing information

2

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information (EVPPI)

– Value of eliminating uncertainty in subset of input parameters to decision model – Infinite-sized trial measuring relative effects on 1-year survival – Useful to identify which parameters responsible for decision uncertainty

3

Expected Value of Sample Information (EVSI)

– Value of reducing uncertainty by conducting a study of given design – Can compare the benefits and costs of a study with given design – Is the proposed study likely to be a good use of resources? What is the optimal design?

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 26 / 36

slide-73
SLIDE 73

Summarising PSA:

Expected Value of Perfect Information

Parameters simulations Expected utility Maximum Opportunity Iter/n π0 ρ . . . γ NB0(θ) NB1(θ) net benefit loss 1 0.365 0.076 . . . 0.162 19 214 751 19 647 706 19 647 706 2 0.421 0.024 . . . 0.134 17 165 526 17 163 407 17 165 526 2 119.3 3 0.125 0.017 . . . 0.149 18 710 928 16 458 433 18 710 928 2 252 495.5 4 0.117 0.073 . . . 0.120 16 991 321 18 497 648 18 497 648 5 0.481 0.008 . . . 0.191 19 772 898 18 662 329 19 772 898 1 110 569.3 6 0.163 0.127 . . . 0.004 17 106 136 18 983 331 18 983 331 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 0.354 0.067 . . . 0.117 18 043 921 16 470 805 18 043 921 1 573 116.0 Average 18 659 238 19 515 004 19 741 589 226 585

  • Characterise uncertainty in the model parameters

– In a full Bayesian setting, these are draws from the joint posterior distribution of θ – In a frequentist setting, these are typically Monte Carlo draws from a set of univariate distributions that describe some level of uncertainty around MLEs (two-step/hybrid)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 27 / 36

slide-74
SLIDE 74

Summarising PSA:

Expected Value of Perfect Information

Parameters simulations Expected utility Maximum Opportunity Iter/n π0 ρ . . . γ NB0(θ) NB1(θ) net benefit loss 1 0.365 0.076 . . . 0.162 19 214 751 19 647 706 19 647 706 2 0.421 0.024 . . . 0.134 17 165 526 17 163 407 17 165 526 2 119.3 3 0.125 0.017 . . . 0.149 18 710 928 16 458 433 18 710 928 2 252 495.5 4 0.117 0.073 . . . 0.120 16 991 321 18 497 648 18 497 648 5 0.481 0.008 . . . 0.191 19 772 898 18 662 329 19 772 898 1 110 569.3 6 0.163 0.127 . . . 0.004 17 106 136 18 983 331 18 983 331 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 0.354 0.067 . . . 0.117 18 043 921 16 470 805 18 043 921 1 573 116.0 Average 18 659 238 19 515 004 19 741 589 226 585

  • Uncertainty in the parameters induces a distribution of decisions

– Typically based on the net benefits: NBt(θ) = kµet − µct – In each parameters configuration can identify the optimal strategy

  • Averaging over the uncertainty in θ provides t∗, the overall optimal decision given

current uncertainty (= choose the intervention associated with highest expected utility)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 27 / 36

slide-75
SLIDE 75

Summarising PSA:

Expected Value of Perfect Information

Parameters simulations Expected utility Maximum Opportunity Iter/n π0 ρ . . . γ NB0(θ) NB1(θ) net benefit loss 1 0.365 0.076 . . . 0.162 19 214 751 19 647 706 19 647 706 2 0.421 0.024 . . . 0.134 17 165 526 17 163 407 17 165 526 2 119.3 3 0.125 0.017 . . . 0.149 18 710 928 16 458 433 18 710 928 2 252 495.5 4 0.117 0.073 . . . 0.120 16 991 321 18 497 648 18 497 648 5 0.481 0.008 . . . 0.191 19 772 898 18 662 329 19 772 898 1 110 569.3 6 0.163 0.127 . . . 0.004 17 106 136 18 983 331 18 983 331 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 0.354 0.067 . . . 0.117 18 043 921 16 470 805 18 043 921 1 573 116.0 Average 18 659 238 19 515 004 19 741 589 226 585

  • Expected Value of “Perfect” Information (EVPI) summarises uncertainty in

the decision

– Defined as the average Opportunity Loss – Can also be computed as the difference between the average maximum expected utility under “perfect” information and the maximum expected utility overall: EVPI = Eθ

  • max

t

NBt(θ)

  • Value of decision

if we knew θ

− max

t

Eθ [NBt(θ)]

  • Value of decision based
  • n current information

= Eθ

  • max

t

NBt(θ) − NBt∗(θ)

  • Opportunity lost from using t∗

instead of the optimal t for θ

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 27 / 36

slide-76
SLIDE 76

Summarising PSA:

Expected Value of Perfect Information

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 50000 150000 250000 350000

Expected Value of Information

Willingness to pay EVPI

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 28 / 36

slide-77
SLIDE 77

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

  • θ = all the model parameters; can be split into two subsets

– The “parameters of interest” φ, e.g. prevalence of a disease, HRQL measures, length

  • f stay in hospital, ...

– The “remaining parameters” ψ, e.g. cost of treatment with other established medications,

  • We are interested in quantifying the value of gaining more information on φ, while

leaving the current level of uncertainty on ψ unchanged

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 29 / 36

slide-78
SLIDE 78

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

  • θ = all the model parameters; can be split into two subsets

– The “parameters of interest” φ, e.g. prevalence of a disease, HRQL measures, length

  • f stay in hospital, ...

– The “remaining parameters” ψ, e.g. cost of treatment with other established medications,

  • We are interested in quantifying the value of gaining more information on φ, while

leaving the current level of uncertainty on ψ unchanged

  • In formulæ:

– First, consider the expected utility (EU) if we were able to learn φ but not ψ – If we knew φ perfectly, best decision = the maximum of this EU – Of course we cannot learn φ perfectly, so take the expected value – And compare this with the maximum expected utility overall – This is the EVPPI! EVPPI = Eφ

  • max

t

Eψ|φ [NBt(θ)]

  • − max

t

Eθ [NBt(θ)]

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 29 / 36

slide-79
SLIDE 79

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

  • θ = all the model parameters; can be split into two subsets

– The “parameters of interest” φ, e.g. prevalence of a disease, HRQL measures, length

  • f stay in hospital, ...

– The “remaining parameters” ψ, e.g. cost of treatment with other established medications,

  • We are interested in quantifying the value of gaining more information on φ, while

leaving the current level of uncertainty on ψ unchanged

  • In formulæ:

– First, consider the expected utility (EU) if we were able to learn φ but not ψ – If we knew φ perfectly, best decision = the maximum of this EU – Of course we cannot learn φ perfectly, so take the expected value – And compare this with the maximum expected utility overall – This is the EVPPI! EVPPI = Eφ

  • max

t

Eψ|φ [NBt(θ)]

  • − max

t

Eθ [NBt(θ)]

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 29 / 36

slide-80
SLIDE 80

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

  • θ = all the model parameters; can be split into two subsets

– The “parameters of interest” φ, e.g. prevalence of a disease, HRQL measures, length

  • f stay in hospital, ...

– The “remaining parameters” ψ, e.g. cost of treatment with other established medications,

  • We are interested in quantifying the value of gaining more information on φ, while

leaving the current level of uncertainty on ψ unchanged

  • In formulæ:

– First, consider the expected utility (EU) if we were able to learn φ but not ψ – If we knew φ perfectly, best decision = the maximum of this EU – Of course we cannot learn φ perfectly, so take the expected value – And compare this with the maximum expected utility overall – This is the EVPPI! EVPPI = Eφ

  • max

t

Eψ|φ [NBt(θ)]

  • − max

t

Eθ [NBt(θ)]

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 29 / 36

slide-81
SLIDE 81

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

  • θ = all the model parameters; can be split into two subsets

– The “parameters of interest” φ, e.g. prevalence of a disease, HRQL measures, length

  • f stay in hospital, ...

– The “remaining parameters” ψ, e.g. cost of treatment with other established medications,

  • We are interested in quantifying the value of gaining more information on φ, while

leaving the current level of uncertainty on ψ unchanged

  • In formulæ:

– First, consider the expected utility (EU) if we were able to learn φ but not ψ – If we knew φ perfectly, best decision = the maximum of this EU – Of course we cannot learn φ perfectly, so take the expected value – And compare this with the maximum expected utility overall – This is the EVPPI! EVPPI = Eφ

  • max

t

Eψ|φ [NBt(θ)]

  • − max

t

Eθ [NBt(θ)]

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 29 / 36

slide-82
SLIDE 82

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

  • θ = all the model parameters; can be split into two subsets

– The “parameters of interest” φ, e.g. prevalence of a disease, HRQL measures, length

  • f stay in hospital, ...

– The “remaining parameters” ψ, e.g. cost of treatment with other established medications,

  • We are interested in quantifying the value of gaining more information on φ, while

leaving the current level of uncertainty on ψ unchanged

  • In formulæ:

– First, consider the expected utility (EU) if we were able to learn φ but not ψ – If we knew φ perfectly, best decision = the maximum of this EU – Of course we cannot learn φ perfectly, so take the expected value – And compare this with the maximum expected utility overall – This is the EVPPI! EVPPI = Eφ

  • max

t

Eψ|φ [NBt(θ)]

  • − max

t

Eθ [NBt(θ)]

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 29 / 36

slide-83
SLIDE 83

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

  • θ = all the model parameters; can be split into two subsets

– The “parameters of interest” φ, e.g. prevalence of a disease, HRQL measures, length

  • f stay in hospital, ...

– The “remaining parameters” ψ, e.g. cost of treatment with other established medications,

  • We are interested in quantifying the value of gaining more information on φ, while

leaving the current level of uncertainty on ψ unchanged

  • In formulæ:

– First, consider the expected utility (EU) if we were able to learn φ but not ψ – If we knew φ perfectly, best decision = the maximum of this EU – Of course we cannot learn φ perfectly, so take the expected value – And compare this with the maximum expected utility overall – This is the EVPPI! EVPPI = Eφ

  • max

t

Eψ|φ [NBt(θ)]

  • − max

t

Eθ [NBt(θ)]

  • That’s the difficult part!

– Can do nested Monte Carlo, but takes forever to get accurate results – Recent methods based on Gaussian Process regression very efficient & quick!

Strong et al Medical Decision Making. 2014; 34(3): 311-26. http://savi.shef.ac.uk/SAVI/ Heath et al Statistics in Medicine. 2016; 35(23): 4264-4280. https://egon.stats.ucl.ac.uk/projects/EVSI/ Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 29 / 36

slide-84
SLIDE 84

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information

delta q.6. pi.1.2. beta.7. psi.4. psi.8. psi.2. Hospital.1.1. GP.2.1. Infected.2.2. Hospital.2.1. Trt.1.2.1. q.7. xi beta.4. Mild.Compl.2.1. psi.6. Adverse.events q.1. psi.1. Trt.2.2.1. beta.5. Death.1.1. rho.2. Death.2.1. beta.1. q.4. gamma.1. Infected.1.1. Infected.2.1. Death.2.2. beta.3. eta Pneumonia.2.1. Pneumonia.1.1. Mild.Compl.1.1. psi.5. Trt.2.1.1. psi.3. lambda Trt.1.1.1. GP.1.1. psi.7. Trt.1.2.2. n.1.2. n.2.2. phi Pneumonia.2.2. beta.2. Mild.Compl.2.2. GP.2.2. q.5. Trt.2.2.2. gamma.2. beta.6.

Info−rank plot for willingness to pay=20100

Proportion of total EVPI

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 30 / 36

slide-85
SLIDE 85

Summarising PSA + Research priority:

Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information Expected Value of Perfect Partial Information

Willingness to pay

EVPI EVPPI for selected parameters (INLA/SPDE) EVPPI for selected parameters (GAM)

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 30 / 36

slide-86
SLIDE 86

Research priority:

Expected Value of Sample Information

EVSI = Eθ,d|θ          max

t

Eθ|d [NBt(θ)]

  • Value of decision based on

sample information (for a given study design)

         − max

t

Eθ [NBt∗(θ)]

  • Value of decision based on

current information Prior predictive distribution (pre-posterior) Posterior given data d

  • Computationally complex

– Requires specific knowledge of the model for (future/hypothetical) data collection – Again, recent methods have improved efficiency

  • Can be used to drive design of new study (eg sample size calculations)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 31 / 36

slide-87
SLIDE 87

Research priority:

Expected Value of Sample Information

  • 500

1000 1500 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Sample Size Per Person EVSI 0.025 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.975 EVPPI 5 10 15 20 25 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Probability of Cost−Effective Trial

Time Horizon Incidence Population

Prob=0 Prob=.5 Prob=1

https://github.com/giabaio/EVSI https://egon.stats.ucl.ac.uk/projects/EVSI Heath et al (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09590 Heath et al Medical Decision Making. 2017. 38(2): 163-173

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 32 / 36

slide-88
SLIDE 88

Research priority:

Expected Value of Sample Information

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 −600 −400 −200 200 400 600 Sample Size of XN Economic value

End Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 32 / 36

slide-89
SLIDE 89

Outline

  • 1. Health economic evaluation

– What is it? – How does it work?

  • 2. Statistical modelling

– Individual-level vs aggregated data – The importance of being a Bayesian

  • 3. Some examples

– Individual level & partially observed data

ILD+Missing data

– Survival analysis in HTA

Survival analysis

– Value of information

  • 4. Conclusions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 33 / 36

slide-90
SLIDE 90

Conclusions

  • Bayesian modelling particularly effective in health economic evaluations
  • Allows the incorporation of external, additional information to the current analysis

– Previous studies – Elicitation of expert opinions

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 34 / 36

slide-91
SLIDE 91

Conclusions

  • Bayesian modelling particularly effective in health economic evaluations
  • Allows the incorporation of external, additional information to the current analysis

– Previous studies – Elicitation of expert opinions

  • In general, Bayesian models are more flexible and allow the inclusion of complex

relationships between variables and parameters

– This is particularly effective in decision-models, where information from different sources may be combined into a single framework – Useful in the case of individual-level data (eg from Phase III RCT)

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 34 / 36

slide-92
SLIDE 92

Conclusions

  • Bayesian modelling particularly effective in health economic evaluations
  • Allows the incorporation of external, additional information to the current analysis

– Previous studies – Elicitation of expert opinions

  • In general, Bayesian models are more flexible and allow the inclusion of complex

relationships between variables and parameters

– This is particularly effective in decision-models, where information from different sources may be combined into a single framework – Useful in the case of individual-level data (eg from Phase III RCT)

  • Using MCMC methods, it is possible to produce the results in terms of simulations

from the posterior distributions

– These can be used to build suitable variables of cost and benefit – Particularly effective for running “probabilistic sensitivity analysis”

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 34 / 36

slide-93
SLIDE 93

Shameless self marketing

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 35 / 36

slide-94
SLIDE 94

Ευχαριστω ´!

Gianluca Baio (UCL) Bayesian methods in health economics Seminar AUEB, 3 May 2018 36 / 36