Source author record

Andrea Gabrio

Andrea Gabrio appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Applications Methodology

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

2topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

A review of heath economic evaluation practice in the Netherlands: are we moving forward?

In 2016, the Dutch National Health Care Institute issued new guidelines that aggregated and updated previous recommendations on key elements for conducting economic evaluation. However, the impact on standard practice after the introduction of the guidelines in terms of design, methodology and reporting choices, is still uncertain. To assess this impact, we examine and compare key analysis components of economic evaluations conducted in the Netherlands before (2010-2015) and after (2016-2020) the introduction of the guidelines. We specifically focus on two aspects of the analysis that are crucial in determining the plausibility of the results: statistical methodology and missing data handling. Our review shows how many components of economic evaluations have changed in accordance with the new recommendations towards more transparent and advanced analytic approaches. However, potential limitations are identified in terms of the statistical software and information provided to support the choice of missing data methods.

preprint2022arXiv

Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial-based economic evaluations

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are an important source of evidence in the assessment of health interventions. In these studies, cost and effectiveness outcomes are commonly measured at multiple time points, but some observations may be missing. Restricting the analysis to the participants with complete data can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. Methods, such as multiple imputation, have been recommended as they make better use of the data available and are valid under less restrictive Missing At Random (MAR) assumption. Linear mixed effects models (LMMs) offer a simple alternative to handle missing data under MAR without requiring imputations, and have not been very well explored in the CEA context. In this manuscript, we aim to familiarise readers with LMMs and demonstrate their implementation in CEA. We illustrate the approach on a randomised trial of antidepressant, and provide the implementation code in R and Stata. We hope that the more familiar statistical framework associated with LMMs, compared to other missing data approaches, will encourage their implementation and move practitioners away from inadequate methods.

preprint2020arXiv

Joint longitudinal models for dealing with missing at random data in trial-based economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations based on patient-level data collected alongside clinical trials~(e.g. health related quality of life and resource use measures) are an important component of the process which informs resource allocation decisions. Almost inevitably, the analysis is complicated by the fact that some individuals drop out from the study, which causes their data to be unobserved at some time point. Current practice performs the evaluation by handling the missing data at the level of aggregated variables (e.g. QALYs), which are obtained by combining the economic data over the duration of the study, and are often conducted under a missing at random (MAR) assumption. However, this approach may lead to incorrect inferences since it ignores the longitudinal nature of the data and may end up discarding a considerable amount of observations from the analysis. We propose the use of joint longitudinal models to extend standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods by taking into account the longitudinal structure and incorporate all available data to improve the estimation of the targeted quantities under MAR. Our approach is compared to popular missingness approaches in trial-based analyses, motivated by an exploratory simulation study, and applied to data from two real case studies.

preprint2016arXiv

Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: a Review with Future Guidelines

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (CEAs) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly often designed to collect resource use and preference-based health status data for the purpose of healthcare technology assessment. However, because of the way these measures are collected, they are prone to missing data, which can ultimately affect the decision of whether an intervention is good value for money. We examine how missing cost and effect outcome data are handled in RCT-based CEAs, complementing a previous review (covering 2003-2009, 88 articles) with a new systematic review (2009-2015, 81 articles) focussing on two different perspectives. First, we review the description of the missing data, the statistical methods used to deal with them, and the quality of the judgement underpinning the choice of these methods. Second, we provide guidelines on how the information about missingness and related methods should be presented to improve the reporting and handling of missing data. Our review shows that missing data in within-RCT CEAs are still often inadequately handled and the overall level of information provided to support the chosen methods is rarely satisfactory.