SURVIVAL CROSSOVER ADJUSTMENT AND COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS- AN EMPIRICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW WITH APPLICATION
Author(s)
Hopkins RB1, Campbell K1, Burke N1, Levine M1, Thabane L1, Duong M2, Shum D2, Goeree R1
1McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2Hoffmann-La Roche Limited, Mississauga, ON, Canada
OBJECTIVES: First, to summarize the methodological literature on the correction of overall survival for the impact of crossover. Second, to examine and compare the use of these statistical methods in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Third, to apply recommended statistical methods to correct overall survival in a clinical trial that included crossover. METHODS: Medline, Embase, NHSEED and HEED databases, along with grey literature were searched for methodological evidence on the appropriate use of survival adjustment, including but not limited to, Inverse Probability of Censor Weighting (IPCW) and Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Modelling (RPSFT). In addition, empirical CEAs that applied survival adjustment were identified and reviewed. The appropriate methods were applied to a trial with crossover to compare IPCW, RPSFT, intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analysis. RESULTS: The choice of IPCW or RPSFT depends on six factors: common treatment effect, true treatment effect, crossover percentage, disease severity, time dependence of treatment effect, and crossover mechanism. Nine placebo-controlled CEAs that applied survival adjustment were identified: two studies used one method without comparison, one study incorporated censor weighting for a meta-analysis, five studies reported one method and compared to either ITT or PP analysis, one as the primary analysis and four as sensitivity analysis. Only one study reported a comparison of multiple methods, IPCW and RPSFT. Empirically, PP, RPSFT and IPCW produce lower hazard ratios than ITT. Ranking of PP, RPSFT and IPCW varied by the factors. None of the six factors were discussed thoroughly in the empirical results. Based on the trial, all patients that crossed-over survived which violates the assumptions of common treatment effect for RPSFT and different disease severity for IPCW and RPSFT. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the six factors guides the a priori assessment of appropriate choice of crossover method. In this case, neither IPCW or RPSFT were appropriate.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2014-05, ISPOR 2014, Palais des Congres de Montreal
Value in Health, Vol. 17, No. 3 (May 2014)
Code
PRM122
Topic
Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
Confounding, Selection Bias Correction, Causal Inference
Disease
Multiple Diseases