Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41212393›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026

Individualized Treatment Rules Based on Cost-Effectiveness Criteria in Microsimulations.

Niklaus Meier, Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez, Mark Pletscher, Matthias Schwenkglenks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Niklaus MeierInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. niklaus.meier@bfh.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4099-355X
Ana Cecilia Quiroga GutierrezInstitute of Health Economics and Health Policy, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1649-6680
Mark PletscherNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-4542
Matthias SchwenkglenksInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7217-1173

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveIn cost-effectiveness analysis, treatment decisions are analysed at the population level. Combinations of treatment strategies that account for the heterogeneity of costs and effects across patients can be more cost-effective than a "one size fits all" approach. Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) assign a specific treatment to every patient based on their relevant characteristics, such that overall cost-effectiveness is optimized, but do not include feasibility or ethical considerations. We propose an approach for the design of ITRs based on simulated patient data from microsimulation models using statistical learning techniques.

methodsWe mathematically define the optimal ITR and how to measure the value of an ITR in a cost-effectiveness context. We explore least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, classification trees, and policy trees to illustrate how standard statistical learning techniques can be used to derive ITRs. We compare the strengths and limitations of these three approaches in terms of three criteria: the incremental value of the ITRs compared to optimal treatment assignment in terms of net monetary benefit (NMB), computational speed, and the interpretability of the ITRs. We propose methods to describe the impact of parameter uncertainty on the ITRs. We also explore how stochastic uncertainty can impact the ITR incremental value. We illustrate the methods by applying them to a microsimulation model for haemophilia B comparing four treatment strategies as a case study. The relevant patient characteristics in this model are the annualized bleeding rate, age, and sex.

resultsIn our case study, a simple two-layer-deep classification tree is best suited based on the three criteria. This classification tree allocates treatments depending on whether the annualized bleeding rate of a patient is above or below 30 and whether their age is above or below 51. The optimal threshold values are uncertain based on the 95% credible ranges from the probabilistic analysis: 21-46 for annualized bleeding rate and 42-56 for age. Scenarios show that stochastic uncertainty has an impact on the incremental value of the ITR. DISCUSSION: Based on methodological considerations and the empirical findings in our case study, we expect the superiority of classification trees for the derivation of ITRs to be generalizable to other microsimulation models. This finding needs to be confirmed in future applications. Stochastic uncertainty has significant impacts on the ITRs, such that accurate representations of individual patient pathways are particularly crucial when designing ITRs. Future research could explore further empirical models and analytical approaches for ITRs or consider the translation of ITRs into the real-world decision-making context.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisModels, EconomicPrecision MedicineComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaleModels, StatisticalUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID41212393
PMCPMC13013149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.