Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39574877›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024

Using Joint Longitudinal and Time-to-Event Models to Improve the Parameterization of Chronic Disease Microsimulation Models: an Application to Cardiovascular Disease.

John Giardina, Sebastien Haneuse, Ankur Pandya

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John GiardinaMedical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sebastien HaneuseDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ankur PandyaDepartment of Health Policy and Management and Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Development, Validation, and Application of a Stroke Policy Simulation ModelR01NS104143 · NINDS · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI PANDYA, ANKUR · 2018 to 2022
$2.3M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS104143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic disease microsimulation models often simulate disease incidence as a function of risk factors that evolve over time (e.g., blood pressure increasing with age) in order to facilitate decision analyses of different disease screening and prevention strategies. Existing models typically rely on incidence rates estimated with standard survival analysis techniques (e.g., proportional hazards from baseline data) that are not designed to be continually updated each model cycle. We introduce the use of joint longitudinal and time-to-event to parameterize microsimulations to avoid potential issues from using these existing methods. These joint models include random effects regressions to estimate the risk factor trajectories and a survival model to predict disease risk based on those estimated trajectories. In a case study on cardiovascular disease (CVD), we compare the validity of microsimulation models parameterized with this joint model approach to those parameterized with the standard approaches. Methods: A CVD microsimulation model was constructed that modeled the trajectory of seven CVD risk factors/predictors as a function of age (smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive medication use, total cholesterol, HDL, and statin use) and predicted yearly CVD incidence as a function of these predictors, plus age, sex, and race. We parameterized the model using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (ARIC). The risk of CVD in the microsimulation was parameterized with three approaches: (1) joint longitudinal and time-to-event model, (2) proportional hazards model estimated using baseline data, and (3) proportional hazards model estimated using time-varying data. We accounted for non-CVD mortality across all the parameterization approaches. We simulated risk factor trajectories and CVD incidence from age 70y to 85y for an external test set comprised of individuals from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). We compared the simulated to observed incidence using both average survival curves and the E50 and E90 calibration metrics (the median and 90th percentile absolute difference between observed and predicted incidence) to measure the validity of each parameterization approach. Results: The average CVD survival curve estimated by the microsimulation model parameterized with the joint model approach matched the observed curve from the test set relatively closely. The other parameterization methods generally performed worse, especially the proportional hazards model estimated using baseline data. Similar results were observed for the calibration metrics, with the joint model performing particularly well on the E90 metric compared to the other models. Conclusions: Using a joint longitudinal and time-to-event model to parameterize a CVD simulation model produced incidence predictions that more accurately reflected observed data than a model parameterized with standard approaches. This parameterization approach could lead to more reliable microsimulation models, especially for models that evaluate policies which depend on tracking dynamic risk factors over time. Beyond this single case study, more work is needed to identify the specific circumstances where the joint model approach will outperform existing methods.

Identifiers

PMID39574877
PMCPMC11581079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.