DEMONSTRATING CLINICAL-EFFECTIVENESS USING INDIRECT AND MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS- A REVIEW OF MANUFACTURERS' SINGLE TECHNOLOGY APPRAISAL (STA) SUBMISSIONS TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (NICE)

Author(s)

Bending MW1, Hutton J1, McGrath C21University of York, York Health Economics Consortium, York, United Kingdom, 2Pfizer, Surrey, United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES: Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparisons (ITC/MTC) can provide valuable information for decision-makers, especially when direct comparisons between medicines are unavailable. The objective of this study is to investigate the methods and impact of ITC and MTC submitted by manufacturers on the NICE committee’s appraisal of pharmaceuticals. METHODS: A search of the NICE website was conducted for manufacturers’ submissions that reported to contain either an ITC or MTC since 2006.  Data were extracted and analysed for the type of network meta-analysis, number of trials, head-to-head trial evidence available, disease area, treatment comparisons, study selection justification, sensitivity analysis of trial selection and outcome(s). The impact was assessed by analysing information on Evidence Review Group (ERG) review of evidence synthesis, Appraisal committee’s comments and final decision. RESULTS: The search identified 24 submissions that included either a MTC or ITC. The issues most frequently raised by the ERG were lack of reporting of trial characteristics, description of methods and quality assessment of all trials included. The most frequent validity concerns were both clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials, inappropriate methods of analysis, exclusion of relevant trials and sparse numbers of trials in the network. The committee considered all evidence and reported the analysis to be plausible on one occasion, stated concerns with the validity in 18 appraisals and did not directly comment on 5 occasions. Fifty eight percent of appraisals including an MTC or ITC resulted in a restricted decision. CONCLUSIONS: ITC and MTC analysis has provided additional useful information for NICE appraisals but there has been wide variation in the reporting and validity of analysis performed. Reimbursement agencies should establish guidelines for the conduct of ITC and MTC to reduce this variation. The emerging ISPOR Good Research Practice guide on indirect treatment comparisons will provide a basis for these.  

Conference/Value in Health Info

2011-05, ISPOR 2011, Baltimore, MD, USA

Value in Health, Vol. 14, No. 3 (May 2011)

Code

PHP56

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory

Topic Subcategory

Reimbursement & Access Policy

Disease

Multiple Diseases

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

×