Search

Objectives: The cardiovascular outcomes challenge examined the predictive accuracy of 10 diabetes models in estimating hard outcomes in 2 recent cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) and whether recalibration can be used to improve replication. Methods: Participating groups were asked to reproduce the results of the Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) and the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program. Calibration was performed and additional analyses assessed model ability to replicate absolute event rates, hazard ratios (HRs), and the generalizability of calibration across CVOTs within a drug class. Results: Ten groups submitted results. Models underestimated treatment effects (ie, HRs) using uncalibrated models for both trials. Calibration to the placebo arm of EMPA-REG OUTCOME greatly improved the prediction of event rates in the placebo, but less so in the active comparator arm. Calibrating to both arms of EMPA-REG OUTCOME individually enabled replication of the observed outcomes. Using EMPA-REG OUTCOME–calibrated models to predict CANVAS Program outcomes was an improvement over uncalibrated models but failed to capture treatment effects adequately. Applying canagliflozin HRs directly provided the best fit. Conclusions: The Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge demonstrated that commonly used risk equations were generally unable to capture recent CVOT treatment effects but that calibration of the risk equations can improve predictive accuracy. Although calibration serves as a practical approach to improve predictive accuracy for CVOT outcomes, it does not extrapolate generally to other settings, time horizons, and comparators. New methods and/or new risk equations for capturing these CV benefits are needed.

Transparency in health economic decision modelling is important for engendering confidence in the models and in the reliability of model-based cost-effectiveness analyses. The Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge Network has taken a lead in promoting transparency through validation with biennial conferences in which diabetes modelling groups meet to compare simulated outcomes of pre-specified scenarios often based on the results of pivotal clinical trials. Model registration is a potential method for promoting transparency, while also reducing the duplication of effort. An important network initiative is the ongoing construction of a diabetes model registry (https://www.mthooddiabeteschallenge.com). Following the 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society of Medical Decision Making (ISPOR-SMDM) guidelines, we recommend that modelling groups provide technical and non-technical documentation sufficient to enable model reproduction, but not necessarily provide the model code. We also request that modelling groups upload documentation on the methods and outcomes of validation efforts, and run reference case simulations so that model outcomes can be compared. In this paper, we discuss conflicting definitions of transparency in health economic modelling, and describe the ongoing development of a registry of economic models for diabetes through the Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge Network, its objectives and potential further developments, and highlight the challenges in its construction and maintenance. The support of key stakeholders such as decision-making bodies and journals is key to ensuring the success of this and other registries. In the absence of public funding, the development of a network of modellers is of huge value in enhancing transparency, whether through registries or other means.

OBJECTIVES: The Eighth Mount Hood Challenge (held in St. Gallen, Switzerland, in September 2016) evaluated the transparency of model input documentation from two published health economics studies and developed guidelines for improving transparency in the reporting of input data underlying model-based economic analyses in diabetes. METHODS: Participating modeling groups were asked to reproduce the results of two published studies using the input data described in those articles. Gaps in input data were filled with assumptions reported by the modeling groups. Goodness of fit between the results reported in the target studies and the groups' replicated outputs was evaluated using the slope of linear regression line and the coefficient of determination (R2). After a general discussion of the results, a diabetes-specific checklist for the transparency of model input was developed. RESULTS: Seven groups participated in the transparency challenge. The reporting of key model input parameters in the two studies, including the baseline characteristics of simulated patients, treatment effect and treatment intensification threshold assumptions, treatment effect evolution, prediction of complications and costs data, was inadequately transparent (and often missing altogether). Not surprisingly, goodness of fit was better for the study that reported its input data with more transparency. To improve the transparency in diabetes modeling, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist listing the minimal input data required for reproducibility in most diabetes modeling applications was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency of diabetes model inputs is important to the reproducibility and credibility of simulation results. In the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist was developed with the goal of improving the transparency of input data reporting and reproducibility of diabetes simulation model results.