Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, Hawre Jalal, Fernando Alarid Escudero
{"title":"Microsimulation Estimates of Decision Uncertainty and Value of Information Are Biased but Consistent","authors":"Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, Hawre Jalal, Fernando Alarid Escudero","doi":"arxiv-2409.05183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individual-level state-transition microsimulations (iSTMs) have proliferated\nfor economic evaluations in place of cohort state transition models (cSTMs).\nProbabilistic economic evaluations quantify decision uncertainty and value of\ninformation (VOI). Prior studies show that iSTMs provide unbiased estimates of\nexpected incremental net monetary benefits (EINMB), but statistical properties\nof their estimates of decision uncertainty and VOI are uncharacterized. We\ncompare such iSTMs-produced estimates to corresponding cSTMs. For a\n2-alternative decision and normally distributed incremental costs and benefits,\nwe derive analytical expressions for the probability of being cost-effective\nand the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for cSTMs and iSTMs,\naccounting for correlations in incremental outcomes at the population and\nindividual levels. Numerical simulations illustrate our findings and explore\nrelaxation of normality assumptions or having >2 decision alternatives. iSTM\nestimates of decision uncertainty and VOI are biased but asymptotically\nconsistent (i.e., bias->0 as number of microsimulated individuals->infinity).\nDecision uncertainty depends on one tail of the INMB distribution (e.g.,\nP(INMB<=0)) which depends on estimated variance (larger with iSTMs given\nfirst-order noise). While iSTMs overestimate EVPI, their direction of bias for\nthe probability of being cost-effective is ambiguous. Bias is larger when\nuncertainties in incremental costs and effects are negatively correlated. While\nmore samples at the population uncertainty level are interchangeable with more\nmicrosimulations for estimating EINMB, minimizing iSTM bias in estimating\ndecision uncertainty and VOI depends on sufficient microsimulations. Analysts\nshould account for this when allocating their computational budgets and, at\nminimum, characterize such bias in their reported results.","PeriodicalId":501266,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - QuanBio - Quantitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - QuanBio - Quantitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.05183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Individual-level state-transition microsimulations (iSTMs) have proliferated
for economic evaluations in place of cohort state transition models (cSTMs).
Probabilistic economic evaluations quantify decision uncertainty and value of
information (VOI). Prior studies show that iSTMs provide unbiased estimates of
expected incremental net monetary benefits (EINMB), but statistical properties
of their estimates of decision uncertainty and VOI are uncharacterized. We
compare such iSTMs-produced estimates to corresponding cSTMs. For a
2-alternative decision and normally distributed incremental costs and benefits,
we derive analytical expressions for the probability of being cost-effective
and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for cSTMs and iSTMs,
accounting for correlations in incremental outcomes at the population and
individual levels. Numerical simulations illustrate our findings and explore
relaxation of normality assumptions or having >2 decision alternatives. iSTM
estimates of decision uncertainty and VOI are biased but asymptotically
consistent (i.e., bias->0 as number of microsimulated individuals->infinity).
Decision uncertainty depends on one tail of the INMB distribution (e.g.,
P(INMB<=0)) which depends on estimated variance (larger with iSTMs given
first-order noise). While iSTMs overestimate EVPI, their direction of bias for
the probability of being cost-effective is ambiguous. Bias is larger when
uncertainties in incremental costs and effects are negatively correlated. While
more samples at the population uncertainty level are interchangeable with more
microsimulations for estimating EINMB, minimizing iSTM bias in estimating
decision uncertainty and VOI depends on sufficient microsimulations. Analysts
should account for this when allocating their computational budgets and, at
minimum, characterize such bias in their reported results.