Validation of a model to investigate the effects of modifying cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors on the burden of CVD: the rotterdam ischemic heart disease and stroke computer simulation (RISC) model.

BACKGROUND: We developed a Monte Carlo Markov model designed to investigate the effects of modifying cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors on the burden of CVD. Internal, predictive, and external validity of the model have not yet been established. METHODS: The Rotterdam Ischemic Heart Disease and Stroke Computer Simulation (RISC) model was developed using data covering 5 years of follow-up from the Rotterdam Study. To prove 1) internal and 2) predictive validity, the incidences of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, CVD death, and non-CVD death simulated by the model over a 13-year period were compared with those recorded for 3,478 participants in the Rotterdam Study with at least 13 years of follow-up. 3) External validity was verified using 10 years of follow-up data from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk study of 25,492 participants, for whom CVD and non-CVD mortality was compared. RESULTS: At year 5, the observed incidences (with simulated incidences in brackets) of CHD, stroke, and CVD and non-CVD mortality for the 3,478 Rotterdam Study participants were 5.30% (4.68%), 3.60% (3.23%), 4.70% (4.80%), and 7.50% (7.96%), respectively. At year 13, these percentages were 10.60% (10.91%), 9.90% (9.13%), 14.20% (15.12%), and 24.30% (23.42%). After recalibrating the model for the EPIC-Norfolk population, the 10-year observed (simulated) incidences of CVD and non-CVD mortality were 3.70% (4.95%) and 6.50% (6.29%). All observed incidences fell well within the 95% credibility intervals of the simulated incidences. CONCLUSIONS: We have confirmed the internal, predictive, and external validity of the RISC model. These findings provide a basis for analyzing the effects of modifying cardiovascular disease risk factors on the burden of CVD with the RISC model.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Cost-Effectiveness of New Cardiac and Vascular Rehabilitation Strategies for Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Objective: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) often hinders the cardiac rehabilitation program. The aim of this study was evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness of new rehabilitation strategies which include the diagnosis and treatment of PAD in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Data Sources: Best-available evidence was retrieved from literature and combined with primary data from 231 patients. Methods: We developed a Markov decision model to compare the following treatment strategies: 1. cardiac rehabilitation only; 2. ankle-brachial index (ABI) if cardiac rehabilitation fails followed by diagnostic work-up and revascularization for PAD if needed; 3. ABI prior to cardiac rehabilitation followed by diagnostic work-up and revascularization for PAD if needed. Quality-adjusted-life years (QALYs), life-time costs (US $), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), and gain in net health benefits (NHB) in QALY equivalents were calculated. A threshold willingness-to-pay of$75 000 was used. Results: ABI if cardiac rehabilitation fails was the most favorable strategy with an ICER of $44 251 per QALY gained and an incremental NHB compared to cardiac rehabilitation only of 0.03 QALYs (95$75 000/QALY. After sensitivity analysis, a combined cardiac and vascular rehabilitation program increased the success rate and would dominate the other two strategies with total lifetime costs of $30 246 a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 3.84 years, and an incremental NHB of 0.06 QALYs (95%CI:−0.24, 0.46) compared to current practice. The results were robust for other different input parameters. Conclusion: ABI measurement if cardiac rehabilitation fails followed by a diagnostic work-up and revascularization for PAD if needed are potentially cost-effective compared to cardiac rehabilitation only

Propensity scores in the presence of effect modification: A case study using the comparison of mortality on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis

Purpose. To control for confounding bias from non-random treatment assignment in observational data, both traditional multivariable models and more recently propensity score approaches have been applied. Our aim was to compare a propensity score-stratified model with a traditional multivariable-adjusted model, specifically in estimating survival of hemodialysis (HD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Methods. Using the Dutch End-Stage Renal Disease Registry, we constructed a propensity score, predicting PD assignment from age, gender, primary renal disease, center of dialysis, and year of first renal replacement therapy. We developed two Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate survival on PD relative to HD, a propensity score-stratified model stratifying on the propensity score and a multivariable-adjusted model, and tested several interaction terms in both models. Results. The propensity score performed well: it showed a reasonable fit, had a good c-statistic, calibrated well and balanced the covariates. The main-effects multivariable-adjusted model and the propensity score-stratified univariable Cox model resulted in similar relative mortality risk estimates of PD compared with HD (0.99 and 0.97, respectively) with fewer significant covariates in the propensity model. After introducing the missing interaction variables for effect modification in both models, the mortality risk estimates for both main effects and interactions remained comparable, but the propensity score model had nearly as many covariates because of the additional interaction variables. Conclusion. Although the propensity score performed well, it did not alter the treatment effect in the outcome model and lost its advantage of parsimony in the presence of effect modification

Propensity scores in the presence of effect modification: A case study using the comparison of mortality on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis

Abstract Purpose To control for confounding bias from non-random treatment assignment in observational data, both traditional multivariable models and more recently propensity score approaches have been applied. Our aim was to compare a propensity score-stratified model with a traditional multivariable-adjusted model, specifically in estimating survival of hemodialysis (HD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Methods Using the Dutch End-Stage Renal Disease Registry, we constructed a propensity score, predicting PD assignment from age, gender, primary renal disease, center of dialysis, and year of first renal replacement therapy. We developed two Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate survival on PD relative to HD, a propensity score-stratified model stratifying on the propensity score and a multivariable-adjusted model, and tested several interaction terms in both models. Results The propensity score performed well: it showed a reasonable fit, had a good c-statistic, calibrated well and balanced the covariates. The main-effects multivariable-adjusted model and the propensity score-stratified univariable Cox model resulted in similar relative mortality risk estimates of PD compared with HD (0.99 and 0.97, respectively) with fewer significant covariates in the propensity model. After introducing the missing interaction variables for effect modification in both models, the mortality risk estimates for both main effects and interactions remained comparable, but the propensity score model had nearly as many covariates because of the additional interaction variables. Conclusion Although the propensity score performed well, it did not alter the treatment effect in the outcome model and lost its advantage of parsimony in the presence of effect modification.</p

The cost-effectiveness of primary prophylactic implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease: a European analysis

It remains unclear whether primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is cost-effective compared with a ono ICD strategy' in the European health care setting. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis for a cohort of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction 40 and ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease. A Markov decision analytic model was used to evaluate long-term survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime costs for a cohort of patients with a reduced left ventricular function without previous arrhythmias, managed with a prophylactic ICD. Input data on effectiveness were derived from a meta-analysis of primary prophylactic ICD-only therapy randomized trials, from a prospective cohort study of ICD patients, from a health care utilization survey, and from the literature. Input data on costs were derived from a micro-cost analysis. Data on quality-of-life were derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the uncertainty. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a mean lifetime cost of Euro50 685 Euro4604 and 6.26 0.64 QALYs for patients in the ono ICD strategy'. Patients in the oICD strategy' accumulated Euro86 759 Euro3343 and an effectiveness of 7.08 0.71 QALYs yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Euro43 993/QALY gained compared with the ono ICD strategy'. The probability that ICD therapy is cost-effective was 65 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of Euro80 000/QALY. Our results suggest that primary prophylactic ICD therapy in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction 40 and ischaemic or non-ischaemic heart disease is cost-effective in the European setting

Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of a dynamic economic evaluation model for vaccination programs

With public health policy increasingly relying on mathematical models to provide insights about the impacts of potential policy options, the demand for uncertainty and sensitivity analyses that explore the implications of different assumptions in a model continues to expand. Although analysts continue to develop methods to meet the demand, most modelers rely on a single method in the context of their assessments and presentations of results, and few analysts provide results that facilitate comparisons between uncertainty and sensitivity analysis methods. Methods vary in their degree of analytical difficulty and in the nature of the information that they provide, and analysts should communicate results with a note that not all methods yield the same insights. The authors explore several sensitivity analysis methods to test whether the choice of method affects the insights and importance rankings of inputs from the analysis. They use a dynamic cost-effectiveness model of a hypothetical infectious disease as the basis to perform 1-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses, design of experiments, and Morris' method. They also compute partial derivatives as well as a number of probabilistic sensitivity measures, including correlations, regression coefficients, and the correlation ratio, to demonstrate the existing methods and to compare them. The authors find that the magnitudes and rankings of sensitivity measures depend on the selected method(s) and make recommendations regarding the choice of method depending on the complexity of the model, number of uncertain inputs, and desired types of insights from the sensitivity analysi

Lifestyle interventions in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is responsible for about 15% of all deaths worldwide and is identified as a top priority for decision makers. Both primary and secondary prevention are considered key strategies in the prevention of CHD. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacologic interventions with multiple lifestyle components in patients with established CHD in comparison to usual care. For this reason, a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs were performed