|
 |
|
|
Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices |
Task Force Chair
Lieven Annemans PhD, MSc, Mman, Professor of Health Economics,
Ghent University and Brussels University,
Meise, Belgium
Leadership Team
(as of 2/17/10)
Annabel Barrett BSc, Health Outcomes Advisor, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, Windlesham, Surrey, UK
Cornelis Boersma PhD, MSc, Post-doc/Consultant-Director, University of Groningen / HECTA, Groningen, Netherlands
Joseph C Cappelleri PhD, MPH, Senior Director, Pfizer Inc, New London, CT, US
Jon Clouse MS, RPh,
Director, Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations,
United Health Care,
Brevard, NC, USA
Beth Devine PharmD, MBA, PhD,Research Associate Professor, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research & Policy Program, School of Pharmacy,Adjunct Research Associate Professor, Biomedical & Health Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Washington
Mireya Diaz PhD, Associate Scientist, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
Rachael Fleurence PhD, MBA, MSc, Research Scientist and Director of Health Economics, United BioSource Corporation,
Bethesda MD, USA
Neil Hawkins PhD, Director, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK
David C. Hoaglin Ph.D.,Principal Statistician, Abt Bio-Pharma Solutions, Inc, Lexington, MA, USA
Jeroen Jansen PhD, MSc, Research Director - Market Access, Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA
Kay M. Larholt Sc.D.,Vice President, Biometrics & Clinical Operations, Abt Bio-Pharma Solutions, Inc, 181 Spring Street, Lexington, MA
Karen Lee MA, Health Economist, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, ON, Canada
David Scott MA, Principal Health Economist, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK
David Thompson PhD, Vice President, Global Health Economics, i3 Innovus, Medford, MA, USA
Goal:
The mission of this ISPOR Task Force is to develop a good research practice on indirect treatment comparisons that addresses key issues from the outcomes researcher’s perspective as well as key issues from the health care decision-maker’s perspective.
Background:
When health economic evaluations are conducted in the preparation of pricing and/or reimbursement dossiers, often indirect comparisons of treatment effects are required. Indeed, in health economic evaluations one should compare to the most likely to be replaced, but often direct comparisons are not available. In such situations an indirect comparison can be a solution. For instance, a comparison between A and C is required, but only a comparison between A and B and a comparison between B and C exist. In such a case, techniques for indirect comparison can be applied. These techniques can range from very simple to very complex. Each technique has methodological and validity issues at least to some extent. No clear guidance currently exists on what is recommended or at least what is not good practice.
A good research practices guidance is important at both the health policy level and at the technical research level. At the policy level, it is not clear to which extent policy makers and payers accept the concept of indirect comparison. Some, such as NICE seem to encourage and even practice it. Others seem to be more reluctant.
At the technical level, different techniques have different pros and cons. Standard meta-analyses have been conducted, as well as more advanced methods such as mixed treatment comparisons (sometimes also called network meta-analyses). Good research practices will assist the outcomes researcher as well as the health care decision-maker.
Task Forces Index |
Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices TF Members Access Only
 How to login
User name: first part of the email address (before @)
e.g. for jdoe@ispor.org it should be
jdoe)
Password: ISPOR Member ID.
Click here for login help |
