Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Healthcare Decision Making: A Targeted Review of Regulatory Approval, Reimbursement, and Pricing Recommendations Globally for Oncology Drugs in 2021-2023.

Abstract

Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) evaluate novel treatments compared to appropriate comparators when direct evidence is unavailable or infeasible. The objective of this study was to highlight the prevalence of different ITC methods in oncology drug submissions and to provide insights into how ITCs have been used in recent regulatory approval, reimbursement recommendations, or pricing decisions across various regions and diverse assessment frameworks. A targeted literature review was conducted to identify assessment documents for oncology drug submissions that included ITCs. This included hand searches of the websites of four regulatory bodies and four health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with varying assessment frameworks across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. A total of 185 documents were included for synthesis. Documents were retrieved from all four HTA agencies and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the only regulatory body with eligible records. Within these, 188 unique submissions included a total of 306 supporting ITCs of various methods. Authorities more frequently favored anchored or population-adjusted ITC techniques for their effectiveness in data adjustment and bias mitigation. Furthermore, ITCs in orphan drug submissions more frequently led to positive decisions compared to non-orphan submissions. This review highlights the crucial role and widespread use of ITCs in global healthcare decision-making, particularly when direct evidence is lacking, and in the discernment of market-specific clinical benefits. This work contributes to bolstering the credibility and recognition of ITCs across regulatory and HTA agencies of diverse regions and assessment frameworks.