Model Choice for Quantitative Health Impact Assessment and Modelling: An Expert Consultation and Narrative Literature Review

A Blueprint for Multi-use Disease Modeling in Health Economics: Results from Two Expert-Panel Consultations

BACKGROUND

The current use of health economic decision models in HTA is mostly confined to single use cases, which may be inefficient and result in little consistency over different treatment comparisons, and consequently inconsistent health policy decisions, for the same disorder. Multi-use disease models (MUDMs) (other terms: generic models, whole disease models, disease models) may offer a solution. However, much is uncertain about their definition and application. The current research aimed to develop a blueprint for the application of MUDMs.

METHODS

We elicited expert opinion using a two-round modified Delphi process. The panel consisted of experts and stakeholders in health economic modelling from various professional backgrounds. The first questionnaire concerned definition, terminology, potential applications, issues and recommendations for MUDMs and was based on an exploratory scoping review. In the second round, the panel members were asked to reconsider their input, based on feedback regarding first-round results, and to score issues and recommendations for priority. Finally, adding input from external advisors and policy makers in a structured way, an overview of issues and challenges was developed during two team consensus meetings.

RESULTS

In total, 54 respondents contributed to the panel results. The term 'multi-use disease models' was proposed and agreed upon, and a definition was provided. The panel prioritized 10 potential applications (with comparing alternative policies and supporting resource allocation decisions as the top 2), while 20 issues (with model transparency and stakeholders' roles as the top 2) were identified as challenges. Opinions on potential features concerning operationalization of multi-use models were given, with 11 of these subsequently receiving high priority scores (regular updates and revalidation after updates were the top 2).

CONCLUSIONS

MUDMs would improve on current decision support regarding cost-effectiveness information. Given feasibility challenges, this would be most relevant for diseases with multiple treatments, large burden of disease and requiring more complex models. The current overview offers policy makers a starting point to organize the development, use, and maintenance of MUDMs and to support choices concerning which diseases and policy decisions they will be helpful for.

Evaluating social protection mitigation effects on HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis through a mathematical modelling study

The global economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine, and worldwide inflation surge may have a profound impact on poverty-related infectious diseases, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this work, we developed mathematical models for HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis (TB) in Brazil, one of the largest and most unequal LMICs, incorporating poverty rates and temporal dynamics to evaluate and forecast the impact of the increase in poverty due to the economic crisis, and estimate the mitigation effects of alternative poverty-reduction policies on the incidence and mortality from AIDS and TB up to 2030. Three main intervention scenarios were simulated-an economic crisis followed by the implementation of social protection policies with none, moderate, or strong coverage-evaluating the incidence and mortality from AIDS and TB. Without social protection policies to mitigate the impact of the economic crisis, the burden of HIV/AIDS and TB would be significantly larger over the next decade, being responsible in 2030 for an incidence 13% (95% CI 4-31%) and mortality 21% (95% CI 12-34%) higher for HIV/AIDS, and an incidence 16% (95% CI 10-25%) and mortality 22% (95% CI 15-31%) higher for TB, if compared with a scenario of moderate social protection. These differences would be significantly larger if compared with a scenario of strong social protection, resulting in more than 230,000 cases and 34,000 deaths from AIDS and TB averted over the next decade in Brazil. Using a comprehensive approach, that integrated economic forecasting with mathematical and epidemiological models, we were able to show the importance of implementing robust social protection policies to avert a significant increase in incidence and mortality from AIDS and TB during the current global economic downturn.

The methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies

Once an external factor has been deemed likely to influence human health and a dose response function is available, an assessment of its health impact or that of policies aimed at influencing this and possibly other factors in a specific population can be obtained through a quantitative risk assessment, or health impact assessment (HIA) study. The health impact is usually expressed as a number of disease cases or disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to or expected from the exposure or policy. We review the methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies based on human data. The main steps of such studies include definition of counterfactual scenarios related to the exposure or policy, exposure(s) assessment, quantification of risks (usually relying on literature-based dose response functions), possibly economic assessment, followed by uncertainty analyses. We discuss issues and make recommendations relative to the accuracy and geographic scale at which factors are assessed, which can strongly influence the study results. If several factors are considered simultaneously, then correlation, mutual influences and possibly synergy between them should be taken into account. Gaps or issues in the methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies include 1) proposing a formal approach to the quantitative handling of the level of evidence regarding each exposure-health pair (essential to consider emerging factors); 2) contrasting risk assessment based on human dose-response functions with that relying on toxicological data; 3) clarification of terminology of health impact assessment and human-based risk assessment studies, which are actually very similar, and 4) other technical issues related to the simultaneous consideration of several factors, in particular when they are causally linked.