IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i2p152-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Validation of the Evaluation Platform in COPD (EPIC): A Population-Based Outcomes Model of COPD for Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Mohsen Sadatsafavi

    (Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Shahzad Ghanbarian

    (Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Amin Adibi

    (Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Kate Johnson

    (Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • J. Mark FitzGerald

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • William Flanagan

    (Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

  • Stirling Bryan

    (Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
    School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Don Sin

    (Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

Abstract

Background . We report the development, validation, and implementation of an open-source population-based outcomes model of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for Canada. Methods . Evaluation Platform in COPD (EPIC) is a discrete-event simulation model of Canadians 40 years of age or older. Three core features of EPIC are its open-population design (incorporating projections of future population growth, aging, and smoking trends), its incorporation of heterogeneity in lung function decline and burden of exacerbations, and its modeling of the natural history of COPD from inception. Multiple original data analyses, as well as values reported in the literature, were used to populate the model. Extensive face validity and internal and external validity evaluations were performed. Results . The model was internally validated on demographic projections, mortality rates, lung function trajectories, COPD exacerbations, costs and health state utility values, and stability of COPD prevalence over time within strata of risk factors. In external validation, it moderately overestimated the rate of overall exacerbations in 2 independent trials but generated consistent estimates of rate of severe exacerbations and mortality. Limitations . In its current version, EPIC does not consider uncertainty in the evidence. Several components such as additional (e.g., environmental and occupational) risk factors, treatment, symptoms, and comorbidity will have to be added in future iterations. Predictive validity of EPIC needs to be examined prospectively against future empirical studies. Conclusions . EPIC is the first multipurpose, open-source, outcome- and policy-focused model of COPD for Canada. Platforms of this type have the capacity to be iteratively updated to incorporate the latest evidence and to project the outcomes of many different scenarios within a consistent framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Shahzad Ghanbarian & Amin Adibi & Kate Johnson & J. Mark FitzGerald & William Flanagan & Stirling Bryan & Don Sin, 2019. "Development and Validation of the Evaluation Platform in COPD (EPIC): A Population-Based Outcomes Model of COPD for Canada," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(2), pages 152-167, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:2:p:152-167
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18824098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18824098
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18824098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petra Menn & Reiner Leidl & Rolf Holle, 2012. "A Lifetime Markov Model for the Economic Evaluation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(9), pages 825-840, September.
    2. Martin J. Buxton & Michael F. Drummond & Ben A. Van Hout & Richard L. Prince & Trevor A. Sheldon & Thomas Szucs & Muriel Vray, 1997. "Modelling in Ecomomic Evaluation: An Unavoidable Fact of Life," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 217-227, May.
    3. Mehdi Najafzadeh & Carlo A Marra & Larry D Lynd & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & J Mark FitzGerald & Bruce McManus & Don Sin, 2012. "Future Impact of Various Interventions on the Burden of COPD in Canada: A Dynamic Population Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-12, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elizabeth G Bond & Lusine Abrahamyan & Mohammad K A Khan & Andrea Gershon & Murray Krahn & Ping Li & Rajibul Mian & Nicholas Mitsakakis & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Teresa To & Petros Pechlivanoglou & for t, 2020. "Understanding resource utilization and mortality in COPD to support policy making: A microsimulation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Talitha Feenstra & Isaac Corro-Ramos & Dominique Hamerlijnck & George Voorn & Salah Ghabri, 2022. "Four Aspects Affecting Health Economic Decision Models and Their Validation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 241-248, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph F. Levy & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2019. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Trajectories of Health Care Cost in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 593-604, July.
    2. Elizabeth G Bond & Lusine Abrahamyan & Mohammad K A Khan & Andrea Gershon & Murray Krahn & Ping Li & Rajibul Mian & Nicholas Mitsakakis & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Teresa To & Petros Pechlivanoglou & for t, 2020. "Understanding resource utilization and mortality in COPD to support policy making: A microsimulation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Jodi Gray, 2012. "A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 501-510, August.
    4. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    6. Cleemput, Irina & Kesteloot, Katrien & DeGeest, Sabina, 2002. "A review of the literature on the economics of noncompliance. Room for methodological improvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 65-94, January.
    7. Nicholas Graves & Adrian G Barnett & Kate A Halton & Jacob L Veerman & Elisabeth Winkler & Neville Owen & Marina M Reeves & Alison Marshall & Elizabeth Eakin, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of a Telephone-Delivered Intervention for Physical Activity and Diet," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(9), pages 1-8, September.
    8. Everistus Ibekwe & Carol Haigh & Fiona Duncan & Francis Fatoye, 2017. "Economic impact of routine opt‐out antenatal human immune deficiency virus screening: A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 3832-3842, December.
    9. Warburton, Rebecca Nunn, 2005. "Patient safety -- how much is enough?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 223-232, February.
    10. Dixon, Padraig & Harrison, Sean & Hollingworth, William & Davies, Neil M. & Davey Smith, George, 2022. "Estimating the causal effect of liability to disease on healthcare costs using Mendelian Randomization," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    11. Yaling Yang & Lucy Abel & James Buchanan & Thomas Fanshawe & Bethany Shinkins, 2019. "Use of Decision Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests: An Appraisal and Review of Health Technology Assessments in the UK," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 281-291, September.
    12. Office of Health Economics, 1997. "The Pros and Cons of Modelling in Economic Evaluation," Briefing 000428, Office of Health Economics.
    13. Syed Mohiuddin, 2014. "A Systematic and Critical Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Pharmacotherapeutics in Patients with Bipolar Disorder," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 359-372, August.
    14. Wagstaff, Adam & Culyer, Anthony J., 2012. "Four decades of health economics through a bibliometric lens," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 406-439.
    15. Saligrama Agnihothri & Leon Cui & Mohammad Delasay & Balaraman Rajan, 2020. "The value of mHealth for managing chronic conditions," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 185-202, June.
    16. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    17. Grieve, Richard & Hutton, John & Green, Colin, 2003. "Selecting methods for the prediction of future events in cost-effectiveness models: a decision-framework and example from the cardiovascular field," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 311-324, June.
    18. Cookson, Richard & Hutton, John, 2003. "Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 167-178, February.
    19. Benjamin Cadier & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski & Daniel Thomas & Karine Chevreul, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Free Access to Smoking Cessation Treatment in France Considering the Economic Burden of Smoking-Related Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    20. An Tran-Duy & Annelies Boonen & Wietske Kievit & Piet Riel & Mart Laar & Johan Severens, 2014. "Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 1015-1028, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:2:p:152-167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.