Objectives: Decision analytic modelling is essential in performing cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of interventions in cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, modelling inherently poses challenges that need to be dealt with since models always represent a simplification of reality. The aim of this study was to identify and explore the challenges in modelling CVD interventions. Methods: A document analysis was performed of 40 model-based CEAs of CVD interventions published in high-impact journals. We analysed the systematically selected papers to identify challenges per type of intervention (test, non-drug, drug, disease management programme, and public health intervention), and a questionnaire was sent to the corresponding authors to obtain a more thorough overview. Ideas for possible solutions for the challenges were based on the papers, responses, modelling guidelines, and other sources. Results: The systematic literature search identified 1,720 potentially relevant articles. Forty authors were identified after screening the most recent 294 papers. Besides the challenge of lack of data, the challenges encountered in the review suggest that it was difficult to obtain a sufficiently valid and accurate cost-effectiveness estimate, mainly due to lack of data or extrapolating from intermediate outcomes. Despite the low response rate of the questionnaire, it confirmed our results. Conclusions: This combination of a review and a survey showed examples of CVD modelling challenges found in studies published in high-impact journals. Modelling guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance in resolving all challenges. Some of the reported challenges are specific to the type of intervention and disease, while some are independent of intervention and disease.

doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0155-9, hdl.handle.net/1765/57502
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA)

Burgers, L., Redekop, K., & Severens, H. (2014). Challenges in modelling the cost effectiveness of various interventions for cardiovascular disease. PharmacoEconomics, 32(7), 627–637. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0155-9