Application of quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in cost-effectiveness modelling

Leahy, T.P.; Duffield, S.; Kent, S.; Sammon, C.; Tzelis, D.; Ray, J.; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Gomes, M.; Ramagopalan, S.; Grieve, R.

doi:doi:10.2217/cer-2022-0030

Persistent URL of this record https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3572046

View statistics

In Collections

This item can be found in the following collections:

Medicine / Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC)

Leahy, T.P.; Duffield, S.; Kent, S.; Sammon, C.; Tzelis, D.; Ray, J.; ... ; Grieve, R. (2022)

Application of quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in cost-effectiveness modelling

Article / Letter to editor

Due to uncertainty regarding the potential impact of unmeasured confounding, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often disregard evidence from nonrandomised 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 nonrandomised 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.

cost-effectiveness

HTA

nonrandomised

quantitative bias analysis

unmeasured confounding