Leahy TP, Duffield S, Kent S, Sammon C, Tzelis D, Ray J, Groenwold RH, Gomes M, Ramagopalan S, Grieve R. Application of quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in cost-effectiveness modelling.
J Comp Eff Res 2022;
11:861-870. [PMID:
35678168 DOI:
10.2217/cer-2022-0030]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Due to uncertainty regarding the potential impact of unmeasured confounding, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often disregard evidence from nonrandomized studies when considering new technologies. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) methods provide a means to quantify this uncertainty but have not been widely used in the HTA setting, particularly in the context of cost-effectiveness modelling (CEM). This study demonstrated the application of an aggregate and patient-level QBA approach to quantify and adjust for unmeasured confounding in a simulated nonrandomized comparison of survival outcomes. Application of the QBA output within a CEM through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and under different scenarios of knowledge of an unmeasured confounder demonstrates the potential value of QBA in HTA.
Collapse