GRP logo
Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparison and Network Meta-Analysis Studies – Part 2

Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparison and Network Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparison Good Research Practices – Part 2

Citation for this report is:
Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP,. et al. Conducting Indirect-Treatment-Comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices—Part 2. Value Health 2011;14:429-37.

Translations: » Español | » Русский

For Indirect Treatment Comparison Good Research Practice Task Force Report – Part 1, please see: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/Interpreting-Indirect-Treatment-Comparison-Studies-for-Decision-making.asp

Editorial: ISPOR States Its Position on Network Meta-Analysis
A. E. Ades, PhD, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Leadership Group:
Lieven Annemans PhD, MSc, Mman, Task Force Chair, Professor of Health Economics, Ghent University and Brussels University, Meise, Belgium
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, Director, Oxford Outcomes, Bethesda, MD, USA
Neil Hawkins PhD, Director, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK
David C. Hoaglin Ph.D., Independent Consultant, Sudbury, MA, USA
Robbin Itzler PhD, Associate Director, Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA
Jeroen Jansen PhD, MSc, Research Director – Clinical & Economic Evidence, Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA
Kay M. Larholt Sc.D
., Senior Director, Research Development & Operations, HealthCore, Inc., Andover, MA, USA
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 / Overview:
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.

Activities
Conducting & Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparison and Network Meta-Analysis: Learning the Basics
May 2011 – ISPOR 16th Annual International Meeting Workshop Presentation, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Conducting & Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis: Learning the Basics
November 2010 -  ISPOR 13th Annual European Congress Workshop Presentation, Prague, Czech Republic

ISPOR Good Research Practices for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Indirect Treatment Comparisons Task Force
May 2010 – ISPOR 15th Annual International Meeting Forum Presentation, Atlanta, GA, USA

The draft final report for member comment is: Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparisons GRP for Researchers – Part 2: and
Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparisons GRP for Researchers – Part 2 Appendix: The comments to this draft report and appendix are: COMMENTS: Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparisons GRP for Researchers – Part 2


ISPOR Good Research Practices Index