Development and Internal Validation of a Discrete Event Simulation Model of Diabetic Kidney Disease Using CREDENCE Trial Data

Michael Willis, Christian Asseburg, April Slee, Andreas Nilsson, Cheryl Neslusan, Michael Willis, Christian Asseburg, April Slee, Andreas Nilsson, Cheryl Neslusan

Abstract

Introduction: The Canagliflozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) study showed that compared with placebo, canagliflozin 100 mg significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events and adverse renal outcomes in patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD). We developed a simulation model that can be used to estimate the long-term health and economic consequences of DKD treatment interventions for patients matching the CREDENCE study population.

Methods: The CREDENCE Economic Model of DKD (CREDEM-DKD) was developed using patient-level data from CREDENCE (which recruited patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate 30 to < 90 mL/min/1.73 m2, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio > 300-5000 mg/g, and taking the maximum tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor). Risk prediction equations were fit for start of maintenance dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, hospitalization for heart failure, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality. A micro-simulation model was constructed using these risk equations combined with user-definable kidney transplant event risks. Internal validation was performed by loading the model to replicate the CREDENCE study and comparing predictions with trial Kaplan-Meier estimate curves. External validation was performed by loading the model to replicate a subgroup of the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program with patient characteristics that would have qualified for inclusion in CREDENCE.

Results: Risk prediction equations generally fit well and exhibited good concordance, especially for the placebo arm. In the canagliflozin arm, modest underprediction was observed for myocardial infarction, along with overprediction of dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, and all-cause mortality. Discrimination was strong (0.85) for the renal outcomes, but weaker for the macrovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality (0.60-0.68). The model performed well in internal and external validation exercises.

Conclusion: CREDEM-DKD is an important new tool in the evaluation of treatment interventions in the DKD population.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02065791.

Keywords: Canagliflozin; Diabetic kidney disease; Economic simulation model; Renal; Risk prediction; Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CREDEM-DKD model structure. AE adverse event, CV cardiovascular, CVD cardiovascular disease, CREDEM-DKD CREDENCE Economic Model of DKD, CREDENCE Canagliflozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation, DoSCr doubling of serum creatinine, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, HF heart failure, HHF hospitalization for heart failure, Hx history, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, MI myocardial infarction, LY life-year, RRT renal replacement therapy, UACR urine albumin to creatinine ratio
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier cumulative incidence curves for risk equation predictions and observed CREDENCE values, by outcome. CREDENCE Canagliflozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation, HHF hospitalization for heart failure, HR hazard ratio, MI, myocardial infarction
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Kaplan–Meier cumulative incidence curves for predicted and observed CREDENCE trial values, by outcome. CREDENCE Canagliflozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation, HHF hospitalization for heart failure, HR hazard ratio, MI myocardial infarction
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Kaplan–Meier cumulative incidence curves for predicted and observed CANVAS Program subgroup values, by outcome. CANVAS CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study, HHF hospitalization for heart failure, HR hazard ratio, MI, myocardial infarction

References

    1. Jha V, Garcia-Garcia G, Iseki K, et al. Chronic kidney disease: global dimension and perspectives. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):260–272.
    1. Bikbov B, Perico N, Remuzzi G. Disparities in chronic kidney disease prevalence among males and females in 195 countries: analysis of the global burden of disease 2016 study. Nephron. 2018;139(4):313–318.
    1. Murphy D, McCulloch CE, Lin F, et al. Trends in prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(7):473–481.
    1. Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY. Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(13):1296–1305.
    1. McQueen RB, Farahbakhshian S, Bell KF, Nair KV, Saseen JJ. Economic burden of comorbid chronic kidney disease and diabetes. J Med Econ. 2017;20(6):585–591.
    1. Thomas R, Kanso A, Sedor JR. Chronic kidney disease and its complications. Prim Care. 2008;35(2):329–44, vii.
    1. Vanholder R, Annemans L, Brown E, et al. Reducing the costs of chronic kidney disease while delivering quality health care: a call to action. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2017;13(7):393–409.
    1. Luyckx VA, Tonelli M, Stanifer JW. The global burden of kidney disease and the sustainable development goals. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96(6):414-22D.
    1. Gorodetskaya I, Zenios S, McCulloch CE, et al. Health-related quality of life and estimates of utility in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2005;68(6):2801–2808.
    1. Pagels AA, Söderkvist BK, Medin C, Hylander B, Heiwe S. Health-related quality of life in different stages of chronic kidney disease and at initiation of dialysis treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:71.
    1. Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(24):2295–2306.
    1. INVOKANA® (canagliflozin) tablets, for oral use [package insert]. Titusville, NJ: Janssen Pharmaceuticals; September 2019.
    1. Farahani P. A perspective on principles of comparative cost-effectiveness studies for pharmacotherapy of chronic diseases. Clin Diabetes. 2012;30(2):54.
    1. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.
    1. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation (handbooks in health economic evaluation) 1. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
    1. Sugrue DM, Ward T, Rai S, McEwan P, van Haalen HGM. Economic modelling of chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review to inform conceptual model design. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(12):1451–1468.
    1. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):678–689.
    1. Mahaffey KW, Jardine MJ, Bompoint S, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention groups: results from the randomized CREDENCE trial. Circulation. 2019;140(9):739–750.
    1. McEwan P, Foos V, Palmer JL, Lamotte M, Lloyd A, Grant D. Validation of the IMS CORE diabetes model. Value Health. 2014;17(6):714–724.
    1. McEwan P, Ward T, Bennett H, Bergenheim K. Validation of the UKPDS 82 risk equations within the Cardiff Diabetes Model. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2015;13:12.
    1. Willis M, Johansen P, Nilsson A, Asseburg C. Validation of the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (ECHO-T2DM) Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(3):375–396.
    1. Lundqvist A, Steen Carlsson K, Johansen P, Andersson E, Willis M. Validation of the IHE Cohort Model of type 2 diabetes and the impact of choice of macrovascular risk equations. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110235.
    1. Shao H, Fonseca V, Stoecker C, Liu S, Shi L. Novel risk engine for diabetes progression and mortality in USA: building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(9):1125–1134.
    1. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(Suppl 1):S1–S212.
    1. Brown JB, Russell A, Chan W, Pedula K, Aickin M. The global diabetes model: user friendly version 3.0. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000;50(Suppl 3):S15–46.
    1. National Kidney Foundation. 2018. . Accessed 14 Apr 2020.
    1. National Kidney Foundation K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(2 Suppl 1):S1–S266.
    1. Murphy DR, Klein RW, Smolen LJ, Klein TM, Roberts SD. Using common random numbers in health care cost-effectiveness simulation modeling. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(4):1508–1525.
    1. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):644–657.
    1. Vemer P, Corro Ramos I, van Voorn GA, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. AdViSHE: a validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(4):349–361.
    1. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices-overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803.
    1. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843–850.
    1. Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Moller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–4. Value Health. 2012;15(6):821–827.
    1. Zethelius B, Eliasson B, Eeg-Olofsson K, Svensson AM, Gudbjornsdottir S, Cederholm J. A new model for 5-year risk of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes, from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;93(2):276–284.
    1. Kengne AP, Patel A, Marre M, et al. Contemporary model for cardiovascular risk prediction in people with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011;18(3):393–398.
    1. McEwan P, Bennett H, Ward T, Bergenheim K. Refitting of the UKPDS 68 risk equations to contemporary routine clinical practice data in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(2):149–161.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться