Introduction to Markov Models Henry Glick Epi 550 March 26, 2014

1. Introduction to Markov Models Henry Glick Epi 550 March 26, 2014

2. Outline • Introduction to Markov models • 5 steps for developing Markov models • Constructing model • Analyzing model • Roll back and sensitivity analysis • First-order Monte Carlo • Second-order Monte Carlo

3. Decision Trees and Markov Models • Markov models are repetitive decision trees • Used for modeling conditions that have events that occur over time • e.g., Cycling among heart failure classes or repeated screening for colerectal cancer • Simplify presentation of repetitive tree structure • Explicitly account for timing of events, whereas time usually less explicitly accounted for in decision trees

4. "Bushiness" of Repetitive Trees

5. State Transition or Markov Models • Develop a description of disease by simplifying it into a series of states • e.g., models of heart failure (HF) might be constructed with five or six health states • Five state model (if everyone in model begins with HF): HF subdivided into New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes I through 4, and death (either from heart failure or other causes) • Six state model (if model predicts onset of disease): No disease, HF subdivided into New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes I through 4, and death (either from heart failure or other causes)

6. Progression in Model • Disease progression described probabilistically as a set of transitions among states in periods, often of fixed duration (e.g., months, years, etc.) • Likelihood of making a transition defined by a set of transition probabilities

7. Outcomes of Model • Assess outcomes such as resource use, cost, and QALYs based on resource use, cost, and QALY weights experienced: • Method 1: From making transition from one state to another • e.g., average cost among patients who begin a period in NYHA class 1 and begin next period in NYHA class 2 OR • Method 2: From being in a state for a period • e.g., average cost of being in NYHA class 1 for a year

8. Modeling an Intervention • Develop mathematical description of effects of intervention as a change in: • Transition probabilities among states • e.g., by reducing probability of death OR • Outcomes within states • e.g., with intervention, cost of being in NYHA class 1 $500 less than without intervention

9. State Transition Model, NYHA Class and Death

10. 5 Steps in Developing Markov Model

11. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) (I) • Markov model used for illustration predicts prognosis in SLE * • Study sample for natural history probabilities • 98 patients followed from 1950-1966 (steroid period), 58 of whom were treated with steroids • All patients were seen more than once and were followed at least yearly until death or study termination • No patient was lost to follow-up • Time 0 was time of diagnosis * Silverstein MD, Albert DA, Hadler NM, Ropes MW. Prognosis in SLE: comparison of Markov model to life table analysis. J ClinEpi. 1988;41:623-33.

12. SLE (II) • Diagnosis was based on presence of 3 of 4 criteria: • Skin rash • Nephritis (based on urinary sediment abnormality, with greater than 2+ proteinuria on two or more successive visits) • Serositis • Joint involvement • All patients would have fulfilled 1982 ARA diagnostic criteria for SLE • A set of 11 clinical findings and 9 laboratory values were used to classify patients’ disease into four severity grades, 1 through 4

13. Diagnosing SLE, 2012 • Criteria have changed twice since publication of source data • 1997 revision of 1982 criteria cited in paper • 2012 revision of criteria • 17 categories in 2012 • Reduced weight of rash/photosensitivity • Increased weight of hemotology • Increased weight of immunology • SLE diagnosis requires presence of 4 criteria, including at least one clinical and one immunologic criterion OR biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in presence of antinuclear antibodies or anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

14. “Test” Characteristics * p=0.24; based on convenience sample of 349 patients with SLE and 341 with active control conditions . Prevalence of SLE, 161-322/100,000; prevalence of subset of candidate control conditions, 2700-5056/100,000

15. Step 1.A Enumerate States • Markov models made up of states • In standard Markov models, states are all inclusive and mutually exclusive (all patients must be in one and only one state at all times in model) • Clearly defined, usually according to standard literature-based notions of disease • Distinguished by their prognosis, transition probabilities, or payoffs • Transition probabilities per unit time estimable from data or literature • Able to assign costs / outcome weights (e.g., QALYs, etc.)

16. States for Modeling Systemic Lupus • Four disease states • State 1: Remission • No disease activity • State 2: Active • Severity grades 1 through 3 • State 3: Flare • Severity grade 4 • State 4: Death (from any cause)

17. States for Modeling Systemic Lupus (II) • Each patient year was classified by greatest severity of disease activity during year, even if severity was only present during a portion of year • e.g., patients whose disease activity was severity grade 4 during any visit in a calendar year were considered to have a flare year • No patient was observed to have more than 1 flare per year and all patients were seen at least once a year

18. Step 1.B Define Allowable State Transitions • Nonabsorbing states: once in state, can move out of it • Absorbing states: once in state, cannot move out of it (e.g., death)

20. Developing Treeage Lupus Model

21. Add 4 States

22. Add Transitions from Remission

23. Add Remaining Usual Care Transitions

24. Markov Model / Decision Tree Format

25. Step 2.a Associate Probabilities with Transitions • Suppose you had data from a lupus registry that was following 98 patients • Observations were made at beginning and end of each year • During period of observation, you had 1117 patient years of observation • Pooling across years of observation, you identified • 100 patient years classified as remission • 937 patient years classified as active disease • 80 patient years classified as flare

26. Remission Transition Probabilities • Suppose that among 100 classified as having spent a year in remission • 59 classified as having spent following year in remission • 41 classified as having spent following year with active disease • None classified as having spent following year with flare or dead • What are annual transition probabilities?

27. Active Transition Probabilities • Suppose that among 937 classified as having spent a year with active disease • 66 classified as having spent following year in remission • 806 classified as having spent following year with active disease • 56 classified as having spent following year with flare • 9 died • Probabilities?

28. Flare Transition Probabilities • Suppose that among 80 classified as having spent a year with flare • 0 classified as having spent following year in remission • 22 were classified as having spent following year active disease • 18 classified as having spent following year flare • 40 died • Probabilities?

31. Probability Estimation • Large number of methods exist for estimating transition probabilities • Simple methods as suggested in Lupus example • If available data are hazard rates (i.e., instantaneous failure rates) per unit of time (Rij[t]), they can be translated into probabilities as follows: where Pij(t) equals probability of moving from state i at beginning of period t to state j at beginning of period t+1; Rij equals instantaneous hazard rate per period (e.g., per year); and t equals length of period

32. Step 2.B Identify a Cycle Length and Number of Cycles (Markov Termination) • Currently accepted practice for cycle length: • Strategy 1: Have cycle length approximate clinical follow-up • Strategy 2: Allow cycle length to be determined by study question or available data; ignore differences that don’t make a difference • Current probabilities are for annual cycles • Markov Termination : _stage > 1999

33. Step 2.C Identify an Initial Distribution of Patients Within States • Use a population approach: e.g., one might want to use distribution in which patients present to registry

34. Step 2.C Identify an Initial Distribution of Patients Within States (II) • Alternatively, start everyone in one state, (e.g., to determine what will happen to patients who begin in remission, make probability of being in remission 1.0)

35. Hypothetical Lupus Initial Distribution

36. Insert Initial Distribution, Probabilities, and Number of Cycles in Tree

37. Step 3. Identify Outcome Values • Basic result of model calculation is cycles of survival in different states • Also should identify: • Costs of making a transition from one state to another state or of being in a state • Health outcomes other than survival (e.g., quality-adjusted life expectancy)

38. Outcomes for Transitions • For current analysis, outcomes are modeled as a function of making a transition from one state to another • Number of hospitalizations, cost, and QALYs experienced by patients who at beginning of time t are in state i and at beginning of time t+1 are in state j • e.g., transition from remission to active disease

39. Lupus Outcome Variables • Hypothetical Cost Data • Costs modeled as # of hospitalizations × $ • cHosp assumed to equal 10,000 * • Suppose that our hospitalization data were derived from observation of subjects for a year • We recorded their disease status at beginning and end of year and measured number of times they were hospitalized during year • We use these data to estimate (hypothetical) mean number of hospitalizations for those who begin in state i and end in state j: * Krishnan, Hospitalization and mortality of patients with systemic lupus erthematosus. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:1770-4.

40. Numbers of Hospitalizations • e.g., Patients who begin in remission and remain in remission will have 0.05 hospitalizations during year; those who begin with active disease and develop a flare will have 1 hospitalization during year

41. Hypothetical QALY Data (I) • Suppose you found a study that reported preference weights from cross sectional observation of subjects (i.e., authors assessed preference for current health among cohorts of patients who were in remission, active disease or flare) • We observed following (hypothetical) QALY weights (NYHA class weights provided for reference):

42. Hypothetical QALY Data (II) • Hypothetical preference weights can be used to estimate QALYs for those who begin in state i and end in state j: • For transition between remission and active disease, we know that people in remission experience 0.9 QALYs and those in active disease experience 0.7 • If we assume that transition between remission and active disease occurs at mid-interval, mean QALYs among those who begin period in remission and end it in active disease are: (0.5 x 0.9) + (0.5 x 0.7)

43. Hypothetical QALY Transition Rewards

44. Other Outcomes • Years of life • 1 for every transition other than transition to death • 0.5 for every transition to death • Discounted years of life • Years of life rewards that include discounting • Number of discounted hospitalizations • Calculated by setting cHosp = 1

45. Discounting • Rewards experienced over time, and thus must be discounted • Can write out discounting equation as part of reward • e.g., for annual transition from REM to REM (cHosp * 0.05) / ((1+r)^_stage) • where r = discount rate (e.g., 0.03) and _stage represents Treeage’s cycle counter (first cycle = 0) • OR Can use Treeage’s discounting function Discount(payoff; rate; time) = payoff / ((1 + rate)time ) • e.g., Discount(cHosp * 0.05;0.03;_stage)

46. Remission Transition Rewards

47. Active Transition Rewards

48. Flare Transition Rewards

49. Row 1, Transition probabilities; Row 2, Number of hospitalizations; Row 3, QALYs

50. Hypothetical Intervention • Hypothetical intervention must be taken by everyone in all states for life, but affects only transition from remission to active disease • Relative risk = 0.8537 (0.35 / 0.41) R to A: 0.8537 * 0.41 • Where does 0.1463 * 0.41 go? • In this case it remains in remission. MAKE SURE residual of changed probability goes to correct state • Cost of hypothetical intervention per year: 365 • Benlysta: “first new lupus treatment in 50 years”, ~25 mg/day; 2014 FSS, 3.69/mg, 365*25*3.69 = 34K