These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Acceptance of Indirect Treatment Comparison Methods in Oncology by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
    Author: Macabeo B, Rotrou T, Millier A, François C, Laramée P.
    Journal: Pharmacoecon Open; 2024 Jan; 8(1):5-18. PubMed ID: 38097828.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard when comparing treatment effectiveness, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies state a clear preference for such direct comparisons. When these are not available, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is an alternative option. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptance of ITC methods by HTA agencies across England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, using oncology cases for a homogeneous sample of HTA evaluations. METHODS: The study was conducted on the PrismAccess database in May 2021 to retrieve HTA evaluation reports for oncology treatments for solid tumors, in which an ITC was presented. The analysis was restricted to HTA evaluation reports published between April 2018 and April 2021 in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Identified HTA evaluation reports were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers. For each ITC presented, the methodology and its acceptance by the HTA agency were analyzed. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-three HTA evaluation reports were identified, of which 120 (22%) presented an ITC. This proportion was the highest in England (51%) and lowest in France (6%). The overall acceptance rate of ITC methods was 30%, with the highest in England (47%) and lowest in France (0%). Network meta-analysis (NMA; 23%) was the most commonly used ITC technique, with a 39% acceptance rate overall, followed by Bucher ITC (19%; 43% acceptance rate) and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (13%; 33% acceptance rate). The most common criticisms of the ITC methods from HTA agencies related to data limitations (heterogeneity and lack of data; 48% and 43%, respectively) and the statistical methods used (41%). CONCLUSIONS: The generally low acceptance rate of ITC methods by HTA agencies in oncology suggests that, whilst in the absence of a direct comparison ITCs may provide relevant evidence, this evidence is not widely considered sufficient for the purpose of HTA evaluations. The perception of ITC methods for the purpose of HTA evaluations varies substantially between countries. There is a need for further clarity on the properties of ITC techniques and the assessment of their results as ITC methods continue to evolve quickly and further techniques may become available in the future.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]