A Bayesian framework to handle missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) alongside with randomised longitudinal trials

Lead Research Organisation: University College London
Department Name: Statistical Science

Abstract

My PhD aims to develop a semi-parametric Bayesian framework to handle missing data in economic evaluations alongside longitudinal studies and randomised trials.
Innovation and research in health technology have achieved remarkable progress over the past decades. While the technological breakthroughs in health care have largely improved patients' clinical outcomes and quality of life, they pose additional economic burden to countries with limited budgets. Thus it has generated wide concerns about how to scientifically assess the value of health technologies and choose between them based on their broader impact on users, payers, policy decision-makers and even the whole society. Economic evaluation, in particular, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), has become one of the major tools in health technology assessment. The method usually incorporates all available and appropriate evidence collected from trials through a follow-up period, and formerly compares the costs and health benefits of existing and new medical technologies and public health programs to inform the decision about the coverage or reimbursement of public health services (Briggs et al., 2006). The longitudinal nature of data often encountered in CEA makes it prone to the threat of non-responses which may lead to biased results and the waste of limited resources if missing data could not be appropriately handled.
Although standard statistical tools such as multiple imputation (MI) have been well developed to deal with missingness and can produce valid estimates if they can be performed properly, their extensions in CEA have been hindered due to the increasing complexity in the modelling. Examples of this complexity include the necessity of considering a bivariate outcome comprising costs and effectiveness data, as well as specific features such as e.g., skewness, spikes and correlation between observations. More importantly, the underlying decision uncertainty brought by plausible missingness assumptions also needs careful consideration (Gabrio et al., 2018b). These features make Bayesian modelling a preferable alternative in this context. Moreover, Bayesian modelling can bring external evidence such as expert opinions to decision making through prior distributions and this benefit is crucial in economic evaluation alongside longitudinal studies as missing values are more likely to be non-ignorable. Recent research has explored the substantial advantages to perform economic evaluations under a parametric Bayesian framework - the capacity and flexibility to allow the complexity above, assess the robustness of missingness assumptions and avoid potential risks of traditional methods (Gabrio et al., 2018a, Gabrio et al., 2018b). However, models with more relaxing assumptions can be exploited to handle more realistic situations. My PhD project will further this field by developing a semi-parametric model for missingness in economic evaluations with Bayesian nonparametric modelling and formally comparing it with existing models to see if our model has the potential to work as the standard tool in health technology assessment.

BRIGGS, A., SCULPHER, M. & CLAXTON, K. 2006. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation, OUP Oxford.
GABRIO, A., DANIELS, M. J. & BAIO, G. 2018a. A Bayesian Parametric Approach to Handle Missing Longitudinal Outcome Data in Trial-Based Health Economic Evaluations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07147.
GABRIO, A., MASON, A. J. & BAIO, G. 2018b. A full Bayesian model to handle structural ones and missingness in economic evaluations from individual-level data. Statistics in Medicine.

Publications

10 25 50

Studentship Projects

Project Reference Relationship Related To Start End Student Name
EP/R513143/1 01/10/2018 30/09/2023
2248659 Studentship EP/R513143/1 28/10/2019 28/10/2023 Xiaoxiao Ling
 
Description Our review is the first review that explores the levels of aggregation for dealing with missing data (ie. missing questionnaire items, missing whole questionnaires at specific time points, or missing total costs or effectiveness that are estimated based on the questionnaires over the full follow-up period) in cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using multi-item questionnaires.

We found that missing costs data were widely imputed at item level, while missing quality-of-life data were usually imputed at the more aggregated time point level. However, given limited information provided by the reviewed studies, the impact of applying different imputation methods at different level of aggregation on CEA decision-making remains unclear.

We recommend that future trial-based CEAs need to provide more information about missing data handling and use coherent methods to deal with missing costs and QoL.
Exploitation Route Our current findings in the application of item-level imputation used by trial-based costs effectiveness analysis can help methodologists understand the real-world practice of missing data methods and unveil the potential of future methodological work in missing data for trial-based CEAs. It also underpins a wider programme of research in which we hope to develop methodological advances to that effect. Professionals in health economics could also benefit by quickly identifying available approaches and potential rationale behind them when they met similar missing data issues in their analyses.
Sectors Healthcare,Pharmaceuticals and Medical Biotechnology

 
Description Our review confirms that there is a general lack of concern about the reporting of missing items in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis when multi-item questionnaires are used. We recommend that health economists enhance their performance in reporting and justifying of appropriate missing data methods at suitable levels. It also points out the necessity of developing models than can properly address the problem. We will build up a Bayesian model to handle missing items in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Our future Bayesian model aims at making full use of available information collected from patients. It will help scientifically assess the value of health technologies and compare these interventions based on their wider impact on patients, payers and society, such that limited resources can be allocated effectively across a wide range of disease domains in our health system.
Sector Healthcare,Pharmaceuticals and Medical Biotechnology
Impact Types Societal,Economic,Policy & public services