Different Methods for Modelling Severe Hypoglycaemic Events: Implications for Effectiveness, Costs and Health Utilities

Edna Keeney (), Dalia Dawoud and Sofia Dias
Additional contact information
Edna Keeney: University of Bristol
Dalia Dawoud: National Guideline Centre, Royal College of Physicians
Sofia Dias: University of Bristol

PharmacoEconomics, 2018, vol. 36, issue 5, No 2, 523-532

Abstract: Abstract Background Clinical trials report severe hypoglycaemic events as the number of patients with at least one event out of the total randomised or number of events for a given total exposure. Different network meta-analysis models have been used to analyse these different data types. Objective This aim of this article was to establish the impact of using the different models on effectiveness, costs and health utility estimates. Methods We analysed a dataset used in a recent network meta-analysis of severe hypoglycaemic events conducted to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations regarding basal insulin choice for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. We fitted a model with a binomial likelihood reporting odds ratios (using a logit link) or hazard ratios (complementary log-log link), a model with a Poisson likelihood reporting hazard ratios and a shared-parameter model combining different types of data. We compared the results in terms of relative effects and resulting cost and disutility estimates. Results Relative treatment effects are similar regardless of which model or scale is used. Differences were seen in the probability of having an event on the baseline treatment with the logit model giving a baseline probability of 0.07, the complementary log-log 0.17 and the Poisson 0.29. These translate into differences of up to £110 in the yearly cost of a hypoglycaemic event and 0.004 in disutility. Conclusion While choice of network meta-analysis model does not have a meaningful impact on relative effects for this outcome, care should be taken to ensure that the baseline probabilities used in an economic model are accurate to avoid misrepresenting costs and effects.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0612-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0612-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0612-y

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().