Back

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

Giardina, J.; Haneuse, S.; Pandya, A.

2024-10-29 health policy
10.1101/2024.10.27.24316240 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundChronic 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionsUsing 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.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.6%
2
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.5%
3
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.2%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
7
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.1%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.7%
9
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
12
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
15
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
17
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
18
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
19
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.8%
21
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
23
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
24
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%