Gianluca Baio
Bayesian Methods in Health Economics
1Introdution to health eonomi evaluationThis hapter is written by Rahael M. Hunter (Department of Primary Care andPopulation Health, UCL) and Gianlua Baio1.1 IntrodutionIn reent years health eonomis has beome an inreasingly important disi-pline in medial researh, espeially with the transition from the paradigm ofevidene based mediine to that of translational researh (Berwik, 2005; Leanet al., 2008), whih aims at making basi researh appliable in the ontextof real pratie, and under budget onstraints, in order to enhane patients'a
ess to optimal health are.Sine the 1970s, health are servies have undergone dramati hanges:inreasing demand for health are has generated an inrease in the numberof available interventions, whih have sometimes been applied regardless ononsiderations about the atual quality and the osts assoiated.Consequently, deision-makers responsible for the provision of health areare inreasingly faing ritial appraisal proesses of the modality in whihthey manage the available resoures and they need to adjust the managementand the evaluation of the proesses used, with respet to some measures oflinial bene�t. The main reasons for the neessity of ontaining ost assoi-ated with health are are essentially the following: The progressive inrease of the proportion of the �older� (above 65 years)population; the inrease of life expetany and of the inidene of hroni and degen-erative pathologies; the re�nement of diagnosti tehniques; the availability of innovative health tehnologies and therapeuti toolsassoiated with better linial outomes but also with higher osts.In this perspetive, the systemati analysis of organised data provides afundamental ontribution to the identi�ation of eonomially appropriate1
2 Bayesian Methods in Health Eonomisstrategies. This in turns has helped the integration between several linialand quantitative (e.g. statistis and eonomis) disiplines, so muh that itan be reasonably argued that health eonomis is in fat a ombination ofmedial researh, epidemiology, statistis and eonomis. Figure 1.1 shows thisonept graphially and highlights the fat that health eonomis enompassesmore than the mere ost evaluations.Epidemiology Experimentalstudies Cost analysisDeisiontheory HealtheonomisCausalinferene Generalisation and integration ofstatistis, epidemiology, eonometrisand �nanial analysis⇓How muh does it ost totreat a patient withintervention t?⇓ Finanial analysis Budgeting⇓FIGURE 1.1Health eonomi evaluation as the integration of di�erent disiplines. Costanalysis only represents one side of the storyIn this hapter we present some onepts that are relevant to the de�nitionand desription of health eonomi evaluations. In partiular we disuss theharateristis of the two dimensions along whih eonomi evaluations areonduted: osts and linial bene�ts. The latter an be de�ned in severaldi�erent ways, eah of whih gives rise to a spei� method of analysis. Wepresent the main ones in 1.6. Finally, we give a �rst introdution to theproblem of omparative evaluation of two or more health interventions, whihwill be disussed in more tehnial detail in hapters 3 and 5.
1.2 Health eonomi evaluationHealth eonomis an be formally desribed as the appliation of eonomitheory to health (de�ned as �a state of omplete physial, mental, and soialwell-being and not merely the absene of disease or in�rmity�; WHO, 2012)and health are, i.e. the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and
24 Bayesian Methods in Health EonomisTABLE 1.4An example of alulation of QALYs from utility sores. In the two treatmentgroups (t = 0, 1), the measurements onsist of the utility sore utj and theosts ctj , for j = 0, . . . , 4 o
asionsBaseline 6 12 18 24 Totalmonths months months monthsTreatment group (t = 1)Utility sore 0.656 0.744 0.85 0.744 0.744QALYs 0.350 0.399 0.399 0.372 1.519Costs ¿2 300 ¿300 ¿300 ¿300 ¿3 200Control group (t = 0)Utility sore 0.656 0.656 0.656 0.656 0.744QALYs 0.328 0.328 0.328 0.350 1.334Costs ¿300 ¿300 ¿300 ¿300 ¿1 200Di�erenein QALYs (E[∆e])a 0.185in osts (E[∆c])a ¿2 000Cost per QALYa ¿10 811a These quantities are de�ned in 1.7where
δj =time between measurements j and (j − 1), in years1 yearFor example, the QALYs at 6 months (i.e. at time j = 1) for treatment
t = 0 are omputed asq01 =
(0.656 + 0.656
2
)(0.5
1
)= 0.164,sine the time between the two measurements, 6 months, is only half a year.Similarly, for t = 1 the omputation gives
q11 =
(0.656 + 0.744
2
)(0.5
1
)= 0.35.Overall, for eah treatment the QALYs an be omputed by summing the qtjterms aross all the time periods. In the present example, the measurementsare repeated at every 6 month intervals and thus all values are added upover the 2 years. We de�ne the QALYs using the notation et (to indiate the�e�etiveness� of the treatment) as
et =
J∑
j=1
qtj .
Introdution to health eonomi evaluation 25This produes a result of 1.519 extra QALYs for the patient under t = 1 andonly 1.334 extra QALYs for the single patient under t = 0.Notie that, in more realisti ases, instead of a single patient per group, wewould have a
ess to a sample of patients and therefore the relevant measureswould be the population average omputed aross all relevant individuals. �Eah of the three main types of eonomi evaluation desribed above hasstrengths and weaknesses, and although eah has their own spei� hara-teristis most eonomi evaluations generally ombine aspets of eah. Morein depth information an be found in Drummond et al. (2005). NICE's De-ision Support Unit also has extensive guidane to support tehnial ap-praisals http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/. Table 1.5 summarises the main dif-ferenes among them.TABLE 1.5A omparison of the harateristis of the main types of eonomievaluation. Adapted from Meltzer and Teutsh (1998)Type Costs inludeda OutomesDiret IndiretCost-bene�t X X Monetary unitCost-e�etiveness X often Health outomebCost-utility X rarely Utility measureca All future osts and bene�ts should be disounted to the referene year (fr. 1.5)b For example: number of deaths avertedc For example: QALYs (fr. 1.6.4)
1.7 Comparing health interventionsAs disussed earlier, the purpose of eonomi evaluations is to provide infor-mation to deision-makers about the osts and outomes of health are optionsto help with resoure alloation deisions. Generally, eonomi summaries areomputed in the form of �ost-per-outome� ratios.Moreover, in order to ompare the two interventions (t = 0, 1), we an de�nesuitable inremental population summaries, suh as the population averageinrement in bene�ts, suitably measured as utilities (as in a CUA) or bymeans of hard linial outomes (as in a CEA):E[∆e] = e1 − e0 (1.2)
2Introdution to Bayesian inferene2.1 IntrodutionIn the ontext of statistial problems, the frequentist (or empirial) interpre-tation of probability has played a predominant role throughout the twentiethentury, espeially in the medial �eld. In this approah, probability is de�nedas the limiting frequeny of o
urrene in an in�nitely repeated experiment.The underlying assumption is that of a ��xed� onept of probability, whihis unknown but an be theoretially dislosed by means of repeated trials,under the same experimental onditions. Moreover, probability is generallyregarded in lassial statistis as a physial property of the objet of theanalysis.However, although the frequentist approah still plays the role of the stan-dard in various applied areas, there are many other possible oneptualisa-tions of probability haraterising di�erent philosophies behind the problemof statistial inferene. Among these, an inreasingly popular is the Bayesian(sometimes referred to as subjetivist, in its ontemporary form), originatedby the posthumous work of Reverend Thomas Bayes (1763) and the inde-pendent ontributions by Pierre Simone Laplae (1774, 1812) � see Howie(2002), Senn (2003), Fienberg (2006) or Bertsh MGrayne (2011) for a his-torial a
ount of Bayesian statistis.The main feature of this approah is that probability is interpreted as asubjetive degree of belief in the o
urrene of an event, representing theindividual level of unertainty in its atual realisation (fr. de Finetti, 1974,probably the most omprehensive a
ount of subjetive probability). One ofthe main impliations of subjetivism is that there is no requirement thatone should be able to speify, or even oneive of some relevant sequene ofrepetitions of the event in question, as happens in the frequentist framework,with the advantage that �one-o�� type of events an be assessed onsistently(Dawid, 2005).In the Bayesian philosophy, the probability assigned to any event dependson the individual whose unertainty is being expressed and on the state ofbakground information in light of whih this assessment is being made. Asany of these fators hanges, so too might the probability. Consequently, underthe subjetivist view, there is no assumption of a unique, orret (or �true�)29
30 Bayesian Methods in Health Eonomisvalue for the probability of any unertain event. Rather, eah individual isentitled to their own subjetive probability and a
ording to the evidenethat beomes sequentially available, they tend to update their belief.The development of Bayesian applied researh has been limited probablybeause of the ommon pereption among pratitioners that Bayesian meth-ods are �more omplex�. In fat, in our opinion the apparent higher degreeof omplexity is more than ompensated by at least the two following onse-quenes. First, Bayesian methods allow taking into a
ount, through a formaland onsistent model, all the available information, e.g. the results of previousstudies. Moreover, the inferential proess is straightforward, as it is possibleto make probabilisti statements diretly on the quantities of interest (i.e.some unobservable feature of the proess under study, typially � but notneessarily � represented by a set of parameters).In our opinion, Bayesian methods allow the pratitioner to make the mostof the evidene: in just the situation of �repeated trials�, after observing theoutomes (e.g. su
esses and failures) of many past trials (and no other ol-lateral information), all subjetivists will be drawn to an assessment of theprobability of obtaining a su
ess on the next event that is extremely loseto the observed proportion of su
esses so far. However, if past data are notsu�iently extensive, it may reasonably be argued that there should indeedbe sope for interpersonal disagreement as to the impliations of the evidene.Therefore the Bayesian approah provides a more general framework for theproblem of statistial inferene.Justi�ations for the use of Bayesian methods in health are evaluation havebeen detailed by Spiegelhalter et al. (2004), in terms of the formal quantita-tive inlusion of external evidene in all aspets of linial researh, inludingdesign, analysis, interpretation and poliy-making. In partiular, the Bayesianapproah is valuable beause: i) it proves more �exible and apable of adapt-ing to eah unique situation; ii) it represents a more e�ient inferential tool,making use of all available evidene and not restriting formal evaluationsto just the urrent data at hand; iii) it is partiularly e�etive in produingpreditions and inputs for deision-making.Jakman (2009) suggests that performing statistial analysis by means ofBayesian methods also produes advantages from a pragmati point of view:beause of the wide availability of fast and heap omputing power, simulation-based proedures have allowed researhers to exploit more and more omplexstatistial models, espeially under the Bayesian paradigm. Examples inludethe possibility of omputing interval estimations in a straightforward way,without the need to rely on asymptoti arguments. This in turns has thepotential of rendering �hard statistial problems easier�.The a
ount of Bayesian statistis that is presented in this hapter is farfrom exhaustive � more omprehensive referenes are O'Hagan (1994), Berry(1996), Bernardo and Smith (1999), Lindley (2000), Robert (2001), Lee (2004),Spiegelhalter et al. (2004), Gelman et al. (2004), Lindley (2006), Lanaster(2008), Carlin and Louis (2009), Jakman (2009) and Christensen et al. (2011).
Introdution to Bayesian inferene 67
−2 0 2 4 6 8
23
45
67
After 10 iterations
µ
σ
1
2
3
4
56
7
89
10
(a) −2 0 2 4 6 823
45
67
After 30 iterations
µ
σ1
2
3
4
56
7
89
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19 2021
22
23
24
25 26
27
28
29
30
(b)
−2 0 2 4 6 8
23
45
67
After 100 iterations
µ
σ
1
2
3
4
56
7
89
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19 2021
22
23
24
25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
484950
51
52
53
5455
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 63
646566
67
68
69
70
71
72 73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
8485
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
9495
96
97
9899100
() −2 0 2 4 6 823
45
67
After 1000 iterations
µ
σ
1
2
3
4
56
7
89
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19 2021
22
23
24
25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
484950
51
52
53
5455
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 63
646566
67
68
69
70
71
72 73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
8485
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
9495
96
97
9899100
101
102
103
104105
106
107 108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115116117118119
120
121122
123
124
125126
127
128129
130
131132
133
134
135136
137
138
139140141142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149150
151152
153 154
155156
157158
159
160
161
162 163164
165
166
167
168169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179180181182
183
184
185
186187
188 189
190
191 192
193
194
195
196197
198199
200201
202203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211 212213
214
215
216
217
218219
220
221
222
223
224225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236237238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250251252
253254
255
256257
258
259
260
261262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276277
278279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286287288
289
290291
292
293
294
295296
297
298
299300
301
302 303
304305
306307
308
309
310
311312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324 325326327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334335336
337338339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348349
350
351
352
353
354355
356
357
358
359360
361362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372373
374
375
376377378
379
380
381382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389390391
392
393
394
395
396
397398
399
400
401402403
404
405
406
407
408409
410
411
412
413
414415
416
417418419
420
421
422423
424
425426 427
428
429
430431
432433
434435
436
437438439
440
441
442
443 444445446
447
448449
450
451
452453
454
455
456
457
458
459460
461
462463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471472 473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488489490
491
492493
494
495
496 497
498
499
500501
502503
504505
506
507
508509
510
511
512513
514515
516
517
518
519520
521522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529530
531532
533534
535
536
537538
539
540541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569570
571572
573
574575
576577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588589
590
591592
593594595
596
597
598
599
600
601602603604
605
606
607608609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617618
619
620621
622623
624
625
626
627
628629
630
631
632
633
634
635636637
638
639640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654 655
656
657658
659
660
661
662663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698699
700701
702703
704
705706707
708709
710
711712
713
714715716
717
718
719
720
721722 723
724
725
726727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734735736737
738
739740
741
742
743
744
745
746 747
748
749
750
751
752
753754
755
756
757758
759
760
761
762
763764
765766
767 768
769
770771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788789
790791
792
793
794
795796797
798799
800
801
802
803804805806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830831
832
833
834835
836837
838
839840
841
842843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851852
853
854
855
856857858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868869
870
871
872
873
874875
876
877878
879
880
881
882
883
884885886 887
888
889
890
891892
893
894895
896
897
898
899 900
901902
903
904
905
906907908909
910
911
912 913
914
915 916917
918919 920921
922
923
924925
926
927
928929
930
931
932933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940941
942
943944
945
946
947
948
949950
951
952953954
955
956957
958
959
960
961
962963964
965
966
967
968
969970
971972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
(d)FIGURE 2.10Gibbs sampling simulation for the semi-onjugated Normal model. The num-bers indiate the simulations sequene. Panels (a)-(d) show the situation after10, 30, 100 and 1000 iterations respetively. In this ase, already 100, or even30 simulations seem to over the relevant portion of the parametri spaegeneri omponent θk an be estimated as:V̂ar(θk | y) = S − 1S
W (θk) +1
SB(θk),where W (θk) and B(θk) are the average within-hain variane and the
68 Bayesian Methods in Health Eonomis
0 100 200 300 400 500
−10
0−
500
5010
015
020
0
Iteration
Chain 1Chain 2
Burn−in Sample after convergence
FIGURE 2.11Graphial assessment of onvergene for a Markov hain; in this ase twohains are set up, starting from di�erent initial points. After the burn-in pe-riod, the two hains onverge to the stationary distributionbetween-hains variane, and S is the length of the MCMC sample. Con-vergene is then monitored by assessing the potential sale redutionR̂ =
√ V̂ar(θk | y)W (θk)
, (2.19)whih represents the fator by whih the sale of the urrent estimated poste-rior distribution of θk an be further redued. If R̂ is large, then onsideringa longer MCMC run will potentially improve the inferene about the targetdistribution. As a rule of thumb, values of R̂ ≤ 1.1 are generally a
epted asindiative of su�ient onvergene.2.4.7 MCMC autoorrelationThe seond ritial aspet of MCMC proedures is that the iterations pro-dued by a Markov hain are by de�nition orrelated, sine the urrent obser-vation depends on the previous one. Therefore, intuitively the atual numberof iterations stored to produe the inferene does not give in general the sameinformation provided by a sample of iid observations of the same size. In otherwords, the higher the autoorrelation, the lower the degree of equivalene be-tween the MCMC output and a proper iid sample of the same size.
3Statistial ost-e�etiveness analysis3.1 IntrodutionIn the last ten years, health eonomi evaluations have built on more advanedstatistial deision-theoreti foundations, e�etively beoming a branh of ap-plied statistis (Briggs et al., 2006;Willan and Briggs, 2006), inreasingly oftenunder a Bayesian statistial approah (O'Hagan and Stevens, 2001; O'Haganet al., 2001; Parmigiani, 2002b; Spiegelhalter and Best, 2003; Spiegelhalteret al., 2004).As suggested by Spiegelhalter et al. (2004), this an be asribed to thefat that �the subjetive interpretation of probability is essential, sine theexpressions of unertainty required for a deision analysis an rarely be basedpurely on empirial data�.Even though the proess is, tehnially, a simple appliation of standarddeision-theoreti preepts (desribed for example in Lindley, 1985), healtheonomis is ompliated by issues related to other important fators that playa major role in real pratie medial deision making. Among these are thedi�ulty of applying standard ost-e�etiveness tehniques to the regulatoryproess (Baio and Russo, 2009), and the neessity of properly a
ounting forthe impat of unertainty in the inputs of deision proesses, an issue knownas sensitivity analysis (Parmigiani, 2002b; Saltelli et al., 2004). This latter inpartiular is fundamental and is a required basi omponent of any new drugapproval or reimbursement dossier in settings regulated by deision-makingbodies suh as NICE in the UK (Claxton et al., 2005).In this hapter we �rst brie�y review the main harateristis of deisiontheory. As in hapter 2 we proeed by introduing the more abstrat theory,in order to make the point that rational deision-making is e�eted by max-imising the expetation of a suitably de�ned utility funtion. This is used toquantify the value assoiated with the unertain onsequenes of a possibleintervention.Next we link the general methodology to the spei� problem faed in healtheonomi evaluation. This requires the spei�ation of the problem in termsof a omposite response, a
ounting for both ost and bene�ts. We presenta relatively simple running example and, as in hapter 2, we swith betweenthe development of the theory and its appliation throughout. 75
76 Bayesian Methods in Health EonomisWe then onentrate on the development of sensitivity analysis tehniques,whih as suggested earlier play a fundamental role in health eonomi evalua-tions. Finally, we present some more advaned issues assoiated with the mainassumptions on whih ost-e�etiveness or ost-utility analyses are based: inpartiular, we onsider the problems of risk-aversion and the impat of marketonstraints (e.g. in the ase of regulatory proesses).3.2 Deision theory and expeted utility3.2.1 The problemHealth eonomi evaluations are a typial problem of deision-making underunertainty. The main objetive is to evaluate omparatively the unknownonsequenes of a given health intervention against at least another. A suitableapproah to deal with this kind of problems is based on expeted utility theory,whih we brie�y review in this setion. More substantial referenes are Savage(1954), Rai�a (1968), Lindley (1985), Berger (1985), Smith (1988), Bernardoand Smith (1999), Parmigiani (2002b), Jordaan (2005) and Smith (2011).Formally, a deision problem is haraterised by some fundamental ele-ments: �rst, we onsider the possible deisions (interventions, ations, treat-ments) t ∈ T , representing the alternatives available to the deision-maker.The seletion of eah possible intervention has some onsequenes (outomes)o ∈ O, de�ned in general as funtions of suitable random quantities ω ∈ Ω.Every onsequene an be expressed as o = (ω, t), i.e. as the result of hoosingintervention t and the fat that a series of random quantities ω will obtain inthe future. The set of onsequenes an be then represented as O = Ω× T .In addition to these fundamental quantities, the deision-maker needs tode�ne a sheme of preferenes among the many deisions and onsequenes;this relationship of preferene is generially indiated by the symbol `�'. Thenotation t1 � t2 indiates that the random onsequenes of ation t1 are notpreferred to those of ation t2. If t1 � t2 and simultaneously t2 � t1, the twoations are indi�erent: t1 ∼ t2.The Bayesian deision proess is based on a set of presriptive axioms. Theseare the riteria that should hold in order to make rational deisions. The �rstset of axioms is related to the oherene of the deision making and involves: omparability of the onsequenes. This assumes that the deision-makeris apable of produing some form of ranking of the possible outomes, sothat there exist at least one pair of onsequenes o1 and o2 for whih theformer is preferred to the latter; transitivity of the preferenes. This axiom implies that if the deision-maker has a preferene for ation t2 over ation t1 and for ation t3 over
86 Bayesian Methods in Health Eonomisnint is the number of interventions being ompared∗ (hapter 4 disusses howto run a Bayesian model, store and post-proess its results using R).In this ase, nint = 2 sine we are omparing two interventions and weuse nsim = 500 simulations. The relevant health eonomi quantities an beprodued by running the funtion bcea, by means of the following ommands(fr. 4.7 for a more detailed desription).
treats
Statistial ost-e�etiveness analysis 87possible omparisons. The seond option spei�es the value of the willingness-to-pay to use as referene. In this ase, we have hosen the default value ofk = 25 000, whih is usually reommended by NICE as the referene ost-per-QALY.
Cost effectiveness plane New Chemotherapy vs Old Chemotherapy
Effectiveness differential
Cos
t diff
eren
tial
−100 −50 0 50 100 150 200
−50
0000
050
0000
1000
000
• ICER=6698.11
k = 25000
FIGURE 3.1Cost-e�etiveness plane for the hemotherapy example. The dots representthe simulations from the posterior distribution of (∆e,∆c), while the shadedpart of the graph shows the �sustainability area�, i.e. the portion of the planein whih the points are below the willingness-to-pay threshold, whih is set to25 000 in this aseThe result is depited in Figure 3.1, in whih the dots are the simulationsfrom the posterior distribution of (∆e,∆c). The graph also shows the lineobtained in orrespondene of the set value of k. The shaded area below theline represent the portion of the plane where the simulated values are belowthat threshold and therefore it an be onsidered as a �sustainability area�.The red dot represents the ICER (fr. 1.7). As in this ase it lies in thesustainability area, we an onlude that, at the willingness-to-pay thresholdseleted, the new drug is a ost-e�etive alternative with respet to the statusquo. With respet to Figure 1.6, the urrent analysis also presents a quanti�-ation of the unertainty underlying the point estimation represented by theICER, beause it is based on the entire distribution of (∆e,∆c), rather thanjust on its expetations.A more omprehensive analysis is provided by Figure 3.2, whih is produed
4Bayesian analysis in pratie4.1 IntrodutionAs disussed in hapter 2, if it is possible to sample from the full onditionaldistributions, Gibbs sampling algorithms an be programmed in a relativelyeasy way. However, in most pratial situations, the required onditional dis-tributions are not analytially tratable and therefore it is neessary to ap-proximate them (e.g. by means of algorithms suh as Metropolis-Hastings orslie sampling) before Gibbs sampling an be performed.The most popular software that allows the semi-automatisation of MCMCproedures is BUGS, and partiularly its MS Windows inarnations WinBUGS(Spiegelhalter et al., 2002) and OpenBUGS (Lunn et al., 2009), whose widespreaduse has arguably ontributed to the establishment of applied Bayesian statis-tis in the last twenty years.The aronym BUGS stands for Bayesian analysis Using Gibbs Sampling andthe program essentially onsists of two main parts. The �rst is a parser, whihinspets the set of delarations provided by the user to de�ne the statistialmodel (in terms of data and parameter distributions and, possibly, other de-terministi relationships among the variables in the problem). In partiular,the parser odi�es the statistial model in terms of the orresponding DAG,trying to make use of the onditional independene relationships implied bythe model assumed by the user. These generally simplify the omputationssine the full onditional distribution for any (set of) node(s) only involvesa loal omputation on the graph. Thus, only a small portion of the wholemodel needs to be onsidered at any given time (Lunn et al., 2009).The seond part is an expert system that is used to dedue the form of thefull onditional distributions generated by the problem. When possible, BUGStries to exploit onjugay to speed up the proess; when this is not feasible,suitable omplementary sampling algorithms are applied together with theGibbs sampling to obtain the required MCMC estimation.While both BUGS and WinBUGS an run as stand-alone software, in reentyears several programs have been written to interfae them with standardstatistial software suh as R, Matlab, Stata or SAS, whih makes the proessof data analysis easier (we disuss this aspet later).Despite their wide su
ess, WinBUGS or BUGS are not the only possible al-115
Bayesian analysis in pratie 137baby, knowing that the mother has gone into labour at exatly that estimatedgestational age), or a hypothetial value (e.g. if the dotor wants to plandi�erent are strategies for a mother who has not gone into labour yet).We an then run the model using the following ode.X.star
5Health eonomi evaluation in pratie5.1 IntrodutionIn this �nal hapter we present some examples of health eonomi evaluation.In partiular we fous on three �typial� ases; the �rst onerns the analysisof individual level data, spei�ally from a RCT, in whih a sample of individ-uals is observed in terms of the relevant measures of ost and linial outome.The seond example fousses on the proess of evidene synthesis, a situationpartiularly relevant when individual data are not available. In these situa-tions, the relevant random quantities an be estimated by the ombination ofthe available evidene, e.g. oming from published studies, or expert opinions.Within the Bayesian framework, this is very muh linked to the developmentof hierarhial models, whih we brie�y review before presenting the example.Finally, we onsider the analysis of Markov models, an inreasingly populartool in health eonomi evaluation, whih allow the simulation of a follow upanalysis on a �virtual� ohort of patients.While the problems highlighted in eah of the following setions an beonsidered as typial of the situations onsidered in applied health eonomis,they are far from representing an exhaustive set: in real appliations, thereare ountless subtleties and nuisanes that need to be addressed spei�ally.In partiular in the Bayesian approah, this require a areful spei�ation ofthe model to be used, mainly in terms of the prior distributions, but also interms of the possible orrelation levels among the observed and unobservedrandom variables.Nevertheless, we takle some of the most relevant issues arising from theanalysis of health eonomi data, trying to point out possible solutions andreferenes where more detailed modelling strategies are presented. All theexamples are worked out starting from the desription of the problem, thespei�ation of the Bayesian model and then the ode used to run the MCMCanalysis and the post-proessing neessary to derive the relevant health eo-nomi quantities used to produe the deision-making proess.
153
176 Bayesian Methods in Health Eonomisp1
p0 ρ
µγ σ2γ µδ σ2δ
γh αs δs
βh mh π(0)s n
(0)s π
(1)s n
(1)s
xh r(0)s r
(1)s
h = 1, . . . , H s = 1, . . . , SFIGURE 5.7Graphial representation of the evidene syntheses in the model. In the graph,solid arrows indiate probabilisti links, while dashed arrows indiate logialdependene. H studies are used to investigate the overall population prob-ability of being infeted by in�uenza, p0. A similar struture ombines theinformation for the S studies investigating the e�etiveness of NIs to derivean odds ratio, whih is ombined with the estimation of p0 to provide an esti-mation of p1, the probability of in�uenza in the senario in whih prophylatitreatment with NIs is made available# the "healthy" adults population (t=0)
for(h in 1:H) {
x[h] ~ dbin(beta[h], m[h])
logit(beta[h])
Health eonomi evaluation in pratie 177delta[s] ~ dnorm(mu.delta,tau.delta)
alpha[s] ~ dnorm(0,0.00001)
}
# Prior distributions
mu.delta ~ dnorm(0,0.00001)
mu.gamma ~ dnorm(0,0.00001)
sigma.delta ~ dunif(0,10)
tau.delta
IndexArbuthnot, 49, 51Bayes, 29, 36�40, 43, 49, 50, 54theorem, 36�40, 43, 49, 54Bayesian inferene, 29�31, 33, 34, 36,37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 47�49,51, 57, 59�63, 75�77, 79,80, 84�86, 89�91, 103, 104,113�116, 120, 133, 151, 154,163, 165, 169, 170, 187, 196,201redibility interval, 48, 59, 61,67, 122, 136HPD, 48exhangeability, 41�43, 81, 133,136, 168�170, 173, 200hierarhial model, 69, 129,151, 168�170, 200model average, 106, 148, 150,164DIC, 104�106, 119, 121, 138,148, 150point estimates, 87, 196posterior preditive hek, 166predition, 30, 133, 166BCEA, 85, 86, 92, 94, 99, 102, 108,111ea.plot, 94eplane.plot, 86CEriskav, 108evi.plot, 98mixedAn, 111sim.table, 92linial outomes, 1, 2, 8�10, 17�19,21, 25, 75, 84, 103, 152�154,159, 160, 163, 183, 191�193,205
EQ-5D, 10, 11, 13, 16, 23QALY, 22�28, 83, 87, 95, 153,154, 157, 158, 160�162, 164SF6D, 10, 11, 13, 15, 23, 78, 153valuingstandard gamble, 15, 77, 78time-trade o�, 14�16ost, 1, 2, 4, 6�9, 17�28, 82, 83, 89,95, 98, 105, 152�154, 157,158, 160, 161, 163�166, 171,176, 179, 181�183, 191�193,205�xed, 186loal �nanial information, 8opportunity, 22present value, 17, 18variable, 8ost-bene�t, 18, 21analysis, 18�21ratio, 21ost-e�etiveness, 6, 8, 18, 21, 22, 26,75, 80, 84, 86, 89, 93�95,103, 105, 111, 139, 153, 157,159, 163, 170, 177, 178, 183,184, 193, 197a
eptability urve, 93, 94, 105,106, 109, 159, 178analysis, 18, 21�23, 25, 27, 84,86, 93, 94, 105, 106, 109,111, 139, 157, 159, 163, 177,178, 193, 205plane, 26, 86, 95, 105, 159ost-minimisation analysis, 18ost-utility analysis, 18, 22, 23, 25,75de Finetti, 29, 35, 41, 42 223
224 Indexdeision theory, 75, 77, 78, 80, 84expeted utility, 76, 78, 79, 85,89, 91�93, 97, 101, 102, 111,146, 179inremental bene�t, 84, 91�93,108, 109mixed strategy, 111, 112net bene�t, 84, 85, 89, 92, 94,103, 107, 108risk aversion, 108direted ayli graph, 40, 41, 43,113, 116, 119, 120, 134, 173disount, 17, 25, 26, 183, 192, 193,205present value, 17, 18distributionBernoulli, 165Beta, 50, 53�55, 58, 59, 82, 83,140, 187Binomial, 46, 50, 52�55, 57, 82,116, 169, 172, 187, 197, 198Dirihlet, 187�189, 193Exponential, 55Gamma, 55, 60, 62, 64, 129, 152,160, 162, 164, 166, 190, 199logNormal, 83, 140, 142, 152,157, 160�162, 164, 166, 171,177, 199Multinomial, 187, 188Normal, 7, 51, 54�56, 59, 62, 64,82, 83, 118, 129�132, 134,137, 152, 153, 158, 163, 164,169, 171, 172, 199Poisson, 55, 60�62Uniform, 50, 117, 120, 130, 135,160, 162, 177, 189evidene synthesis, 151, 167, 169,170, 172, 173, 176, 183,197�200inremental ost-e�etiveness ratio,25�28, 84, 85, 87, 88
JAGS language, 73, 114�121, 125�133, 135�137, 139, 142, 143,146, 147, 202interfae with R, 72, 121Laplae, 29, 49, 50, 69, 115, 122, 125,127Markov Chain Monte Carlo, 63, 67�69, 85, 101, 102, 104�106,108, 113�115, 118, 120, 122,123, 126, 130, 144, 146, 147,151, 163, 170, 190, 201onvergene diagnostis, 63, 67,71, 119, 121�123, 130, 135,146, 147autoorrelation, 67�70, 72, 122,138, 177e�etive sample size, 69, 136,137, 143Gelman-Rubin statistis, 68,69, 72, 117, 121, 127, 135,137, 143, 157Gibbs sampling, 63�65, 67, 69�73, 113, 115, 131initial values, 117, 118, 120, 126,130, 135, 137, 143, 146, 147,189methods, 63thinning, 69, 71, 72, 119, 123,130, 135, 146, 147Markov model, 10, 151, 180, 184deision tree, 179transition probability, 10, 180,182�184, 187, 190, 195�202probabilityoherene, 34, 36, 76, 79posterior, 37, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48�51, 54�57, 59�64, 67�73, 80,82, 85�87, 89, 97, 101, 103�105, 118, 121�123, 125, 126,129, 133, 135, 137, 144, 157,158, 163, 164, 166, 181, 183,189, 190, 196, 201
Index 225prior, 18, 37, 39, 43, 45, 46, 48,49, 51�62, 64, 65, 69, 70,80�83, 94, 103, 104, 115�117, 129�132, 139, 140, 151,154, 155, 160, 162, 171�173,187, 189, 193, 198rules of, 34, 36, 51subjetive, 29, 30, 32, 33, 41, 49Duth book, 35Ramsey, 35sensitivity analysis, 16, 17, 75, 96, 98,160probabilisti, 91�93, 96, 98, 103,108, 109, 164, 196value of information, 93, 96�100, 109,111expeted, 97, 99, 101�103, 105,106, 109, 111, 159, 164, 178,193partial, 101�103, 144�147sample, 97opportunity loss, 93, 97�100WinBUGS language, 73, 113�118,123, 128, 130, 136, 148, 160interfae with R, 114