USE OF NON-NMA INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISON METHODOLOGY IN NICE TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS FOR HAEMATOLOGICAL CANCER

Author(s)

Berdunov V1, Akhtar O2, Stephens TJ1, Laws A1
1Amaris, London, UK, 2Amaris, Toronto, ON, Canada

OBJECTIVES: Network meta-analysis (NMA) indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) employ a network of trials, comparing common interventions in similar patient populations, to assess relative efficacy in the absence of head-to-head trials. Where single-arm trials or heterogeneous trial populations constitute the best-available evidence, individual patient data (IPD) from trials can be used to adjust for baseline characteristics and enable a comparison of treatment efficacy. The acceptance of ITC methods other than NMA by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) in technology assessments (TAs) for haematological cancer therapies has not been described.

METHODS: A targeted review of NICE TAs in lymphoma and myeloma published between 2009 and 2019 examined the ITC methods used in manufacturer submissions and subsequent ERG comments on methodological quality. All types of ITC, except NMA, were considered.

RESULTS: Of the 25 TAs identified in the review, 5 were excluded due to appraisal termination. Amongst the 20 TAs included, 13 (65%) included ITC methods to synthesise data; eight (40%) matched-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC); four (20%) multiple treatment comparisons (Bucher, Bayesian or other); and three (15%) naïve indirect comparisons. Two appraisals presented more than one ITC method. Non-NMA ITC techniques were accepted by ERGs where direct randomised comparative evidence was not available despite substantial uncertainty around treatment effect estimates, and inconsistencies in the choice of covariates and cohorts for matched analyses.

CONCLUSIONS: Non-NMA ITC techniques are commonly used in submissions to NICE in haematological cancers, with MAIC most frequently used by manufacturers. Matching, or adjusting on baseline characteristics using IPD, can be used to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of new therapies in the absence of evidence from comparative trials. Non-NMA ITC methods preferred by ERGs are not apparent despite published guidance on population-adjusted indirect comparisons by the NICE Decision Support Unit.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2019-05, ISPOR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA

Value in Health, Volume 22, Issue S1 (2019 May)

Code

PCN222

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Health Technology Assessment

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Decision & Deliberative Processes

Disease

Drugs, Oncology

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×