BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Anna Heath

Anna Heath contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsMethodologyComputation

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

BCEA: An R Package for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

We describe in detail how to perform health economic cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) using the R package $\textbf{BCEA}$ (Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis). CEA consist of analytic approaches for combining costs and health consequences of intervention(s). These help to understand how much an intervention may cost (per unit of health gained) compared to an alternative intervention, such as a control or status quo. For resource allocation, a decision maker may wish to know if an intervention is cost saving, and if not then how much more would it cost to implement it compared to a less effective intervention. Current guidance for cost-effectiveness analyses advocates the quantification of uncertainties which can be represented by random samples obtained from a probability sensitivity analysis or, more efficiently, a Bayesian model. $\textbf{BCEA}$ can be used to post-process the sampled costs and health impacts to perform advanced analyses producing standardised and highly customisable outputs. We present the features of the package, including its many functions and their practical application. $\textbf{BCEA}$ is valuable for statisticians and practitioners working in the field of health economic modelling wanting to simplify and standardise their workflow, for example in the preparation of dossiers in support of marketing authorisation, or academic and scientific publications.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Marginalization of Regression-Adjusted Treatment Effects in Indirect Comparisons with Limited Patient-Level Data

Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average the conditional estimate over the population of interest to recover a compatible marginal treatment effect. We propose a marginalization method based on parametric G-computation that can be easily applied where the outcome regression is a generalized linear model or a Cox model. In addition, we introduce a novel general-purpose method based on multiple imputation, which we term multiple imputation marginalization (MIM) and is applicable to a wide range of models. Both methods can accommodate a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle for the methods and benchmarks their performance against MAIC and the conventional outcome regression. The marginalized outcome regression approaches achieve more precise and more accurate estimates than MAIC, particularly when covariate overlap is poor, and yield unbiased marginal treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. Furthermore, the marginalized regression-adjusted estimates provide greater precision and accuracy than the conditional estimates produced by the conventional outcome regression, which are systematically biased because the measure of effect is non-collapsible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Effect modification in anchored indirect treatment comparisons: Comments on "Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: Application to time-to-event data"

This commentary regards a recent simulation study conducted by Aouni, Gaudel-Dedieu and Sebastien, evaluating the performance of different versions of matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) in an anchored scenario with a common comparator. The simulation study uses survival outcomes and the Cox proportional hazards regression as the outcome model. It concludes that using the LASSO for variable selection is preferable to balancing a maximal set of covariates. However, there are no treatment effect modifiers in imbalance in the study. The LASSO is more efficient because it selects a subset of the maximal set of covariates but there are no cross-study imbalances in effect modifiers inducing bias. We highlight the following points: (1) in the anchored setting, MAIC is necessary where there are cross-trial imbalances in effect modifiers; (2) the standard indirect comparison provides greater precision and accuracy than MAIC if there are no effect modifiers in imbalance; (3) while the target estimand of the simulation study is a conditional treatment effect, MAIC targets a marginal or population-average treatment effect; (4) in MAIC, variable selection is a problem of low dimensionality and sparsity-inducing methods like the LASSO may be problematic. Finally, data-driven approaches do not obviate the necessity for subject matter knowledge when selecting effect modifiers. R code is provided in the Appendix to replicate the analyses and illustrate our points.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Bayesian response-adaptive dose finding and comparative effectiveness trial

Aims: Combinations of treatments can offer additional benefit over the treatments individually. However, trials of these combinations are lower priority than the development of novel therapies, which can restrict funding, timelines and patient availability. This paper develops a novel trial design to facilitate the evaluation of novel combination therapies that combines elements of phase II and phase III trials. Methods: This trial uses response adaptive randomisation to increase the information collected about successful novel drug combinations and Bayesian dose-response modelling to undertake a comparative-effectiveness analysis for the most successful dose combination against a relevant comparator. We used simulation methods to evaluate the probability of selecting the correct optimal dose combination, the operating characteristics and predictive power of this design for a trial in pain management and sedation in paediatric emergency departments. Results: With 410 participants, 5 interim updates of the randomisation ratio and a probability of effectiveness of 0.93, 0.88 and 0.83 for the three dose combinations, we have an 83% chance of randomising the largest number of patients to the drug with the highest probability of effectiveness. Based on this adaptive randomisation procedure, the comparative effectiveness analysis has a type I error of less than 5% and a 93% chance of correctly concluding non-inferiority when the probability of effectiveness for the optimal combination therapy is 0.9. In this case, the trial has a 77% chance of meeting its dual aims of dose finding and comparative effectiveness. Finally, the Bayesian predictive power of the trial is over 90%. Conclusion: The proposed trial has high potential to meet the dual study objectives within a feasible level of recruitment, minimising the administrative burden and recruitment time for a trial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Calculating the Expected Value of Sample Information in Practice: Considerations from Three Case Studies

Investing efficiently in future research to improve policy decisions is an important goal. Expected Value of Sample Information (EVSI) can be used to select the specific design and sample size of a proposed study by assessing the benefit of a range of different studies. Estimating EVSI with the standard nested Monte Carlo algorithm has a notoriously high computational burden, especially when using a complex decision model or when optimizing over study sample sizes and designs. Therefore, a number of more efficient EVSI approximation methods have been developed. However, these approximation methods have not been compared and therefore their relative advantages and disadvantages are not clear. A consortium of EVSI researchers, including the developers of several approximation methods, compared four EVSI methods using three previously published health economic models. The examples were chosen to represent a range of real-world contexts, including situations with multiple study outcomes, missing data, and data from an observational rather than a randomized study. The computational speed and accuracy of each method were compared, and the relative advantages and implementation challenges of the methods were highlighted. In each example, the approximation methods took minutes or hours to achieve reasonably accurate EVSI estimates, whereas the traditional Monte Carlo method took weeks. Specific methods are particularly suited to problems where we wish to compare multiple proposed sample sizes, when the proposed sample size is large, or when the health economic model is computationally expensive. All the evaluated methods gave estimates similar to those given by traditional Monte Carlo, suggesting that EVSI can now be efficiently computed with confidence in realistic examples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access