Estimation of Transition Probabilities for State-Transition Models: A Review of NICE Appraisals

Tushar Srivastava (), Nicholas R. Latimer and Paul Tappenden
Additional contact information
Tushar Srivastava: University of Sheffield
Nicholas R. Latimer: University of Sheffield
Paul Tappenden: University of Sheffield

PharmacoEconomics, 2021, vol. 39, issue 8, No 1, 869-878

Abstract: Abstract State transition models are used to inform health technology reimbursement decisions. Within state transition models, the movement of patients between the model health states over discrete time intervals is determined by transition probabilities (TPs). Estimating TPs presents numerous issues, including missing data for specific transitions, data incongruence and uncertainty around extrapolation. Inappropriately estimated TPs could result in biased models. There is limited guidance on how to address common issues associated with TP estimation. To assess current methods for estimating TPs and to identify issues that may introduce bias, we reviewed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals published from 1 January, 2019 to 27 May, 2020. Twenty-eight models (from 26 Technology Appraisals) were included in the review. Several methods for estimating TPs were identified: survival analysis (n = 11); count method (n = 9); multi-state modelling (n = 7); logistic regression (n = 2); negative binomial regression (n = 2); Poisson regression (n = 1); and calibration (n = 1). Evidence Review Groups identified several issues relating to TP estimation within these models, including important transitions being excluded (n = 5); potential selection bias when estimating TPs for post-randomisation health states (n = 2); issues concerning the use of multiple data sources (n = 4); potential biases resulting from the use of data from different populations (n = 2), and inappropriate assumptions around extrapolation (n = 3). These issues remained unresolved in almost every instance. Failing to address these issues may bias model results and lead to sub-optimal decision making. Further research is recommended to address these methodological problems.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01034-5 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:39:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01034-5

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

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01034-5

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 ().