Abstract
BackgroundDecision-analytic cost-effectiveness (CE) models combine many parameters, often obtained after meta-analysis.AimWe compared different methods of mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) to combine transition and event probabilities derived from several trials, especially with respect to health-economic (HE) outcomes like (quality adjusted) life years and costs.MethodsTrials were drawn from a simulated reference population, comparing two of four fictitious interventions. The goal was to estimate the CE between two of these. The amount of heterogeneity between trials was varied in scenarios. Parameter estimates were combined using direct comparison, MTC methods proposed by Song and Puhan, and Bayesian generalized linear fixed effects (GLMFE) and random effects models (GLMRE). Parameters were entered into a Markov model. Parameters and HE outcomes were compared with the reference population using coverage, statistical power, bias and mean absolute deviation (MAD) as performance indicators. Each analytical step was repeated 1,000 times.ResultsThe direct comparison was outperformed by the MTC methods on all indicators, Song’s method yielded low bias and MAD, but uncertainty was overestimated. Puhan’s method had low bias and MAD and did not overestimate uncertainty. GLMFE generally had the lowest bias and MAD, regardless of the amount of heterogeneity, but uncertainty was overestimated. GLMRE showed large bias and MAD and overestimated uncertainty. Song’s and Puhan’s methods lead to the least amount of uncertainty, reflected in the shape of the CE acceptability curve. GLMFE showed slightly more uncertainty.ConclusionsCombining direct and indirect evidence is superior to using only direct evidence. Puhan’s method and GLMFE are preferred.
Highlights
In 2006, The Netherlands implemented conditional reimbursement of potentially innovative, but expensive hospital drugs, on the condition that further real-life evidence is collected.[1]
Parameter estimates were combined using direct comparison, mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) methods proposed by Song and Puhan, and Bayesian generalized linear fixed effects (GLMFE) and random effects models (GLMRE)
Parameters and HE outcomes were compared with the reference population using coverage, statistical power, bias and mean absolute deviation (MAD) as performance indicators
Summary
In 2006, The Netherlands implemented conditional reimbursement of potentially innovative, but expensive hospital drugs, on the condition that further real-life evidence is collected.[1] After four years, a new reimbursement decision is made, based on all evidence available. Trials incorporating all competing interventions are impractical at best, impossible at worst.[2] This means that a direct, head-to-head comparison may not be available. If a comparison via a common comparator is available, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) can be used to combine the relative effects of the two treatments versus the a common comparator.[3] With three or more interventions, there may be direct evidence for some pairs of interventions, while other pairs can be compared only via one or more of the other interventions. Decision-analytic cost-effectiveness (CE) models combine many parameters, often obtained after meta-analysis
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
