Difficulties arising in reimbursement recommendations on new medicines due to inadequate reporting of population adjustment indirect comparison methods.

Publisher: Wiley Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101543738 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1759-2887 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17592879 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Res Synth Methods Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: : Chichester : Wiley Blackwell
Original Publication: Malden, MA : John Wiley & Sons, 2010-

Cost-Benefit Analysis* ; Drug Costs* ; Reimbursement Mechanisms* ; Research Design*; Data Collection/*methods; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Decision Making ; Humans ; Interdisciplinary Communication ; Ireland ; Models, Statistical ; ROC Curve ; Scotland ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical/methods ; Uncertainty

Indirect treatment comparisons are useful to estimate relative treatment effects when head-to-head studies are not conducted. Statisticians at the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics Ireland (NCPE) and Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new medicines as part of multidisciplinary teams. We describe some shared observations on areas where reporting of population-adjustment indirect comparison methods is causing uncertainty in our recommendations to decision-making committees when assessing reimbursement of medicines.
(© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

http://nicedsu.org.uk/technical-support-documents/evidence-synthesis-tsd-series/ [Accessed 28 February 2019].
https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/making-a-submission/ [Accessed 28 February 2019].
http://www.ncpe.ie/submission-process/hta-guidelines/ [Accessed 28 February 2019].
Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC; 2009.
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ NICE DSU Technical Support Document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submission to NICE. 2016. http://nicedsu.org.uk/technical-support-documents/population-adjusted-indirect-comparisons-maic-and-stc/ [Accessed 28 February 2019].
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683-691.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised control trials. 2016 http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TSD2-General-meta-analysis-corrected-2Sep2016v2.pdf [Accessed 28 February 2019].
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J. 2011;343(oct18 2):d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.
Grieve R, Abrams K, Claxton K, et al. Cancer Drugs Fund requires further reform. Br Med J. 2016;354. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5090.

Keywords: decision making; evidence synthesis; population-adjusted indirect comparisons; statistical models

Date Created: 20190629 Date Completed: 20200710 Latest Revision: 20200710

20250114

10.1002/jrsm.1368

31250534