Analyze, Deliver, Measure and Communicate Value at Every Stage of the Product Lifecycle.
Join our experts LIVE during one of the 4 presentations to get a deeper understanding of key issues impacting our value-driven healthcare environment.
Request a time to meet.
PANEL: ARE EXISTING REGULATORY EVIDENCE STANDARDS ADEQUATE FOR INFORMING DECISIONS ON MEDICAL DEVICE ADOPTION BY U.S. HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS/HOSPITALS?
Virtual ISPOR 2020 | MONDAY, May 18th, 2020 | 11:00 AM ET
MODERATOR: Nicole Ferko, MSC, Value & Evidence Division, Marketing and Market Access, EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada
PANELISTS: Barbara Strain, MA, CVAHP, Association of Healthcare Value Analysis Professionals (AHVAP), Albany, NY, USA; Gloria Graham, DNP RN, CVAHP, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA; Paul Delatore, MBA, Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA>
ISSUE: With cost containment pressures and the need to optimize health and healthcare delivery, U.S. healthcare providers/hospitals must consider economic value, in addition to clinical evidence and feasibility of adoption, to inform medical device adoption decisions. As the majority of devices do not receive additional reimbursement by payers, providers often need to absorb the costs within operating budgets. Adoption decisions are frequently deliberated by hospital Value Analysis (VA) Committees which evaluate how a device may address a current problem, what evidence exists to demonstrate efficacy and safety, cost, and feasibility of integration to justify adoption. There are no guidelines to inform such evidence development needs, and requirements can vary considerably across institutions. Traditional HEOR methods may be important sources of data; however, hospital decision-makers may not be trained in such methods and may perceive bias in evidence provided by manufacturers. There is a need for clear guidance to consolidate the type of evidence required to support provider decision-making.
OVERVIEW: This panel will debate the evidence requirements for informing VA decisions by setting and device categories, with a focus on medical devices that do not achieve incremental reimbursement.
PODIUM: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES WITH CONDUCTING NETWORK META-ANALYSES ASSESSING LONG-TERM COMPARATIVE EFFICACY IN PSORIASIS- A CRITIQUE OF ASSUMPTIONS UNDERPINNING RECENT INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISONS
Virtual ISPOR 2020 | TUESDAY, May 19th, 2020 | 5:30-5:45 PM ET
1EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada, 2Janssen Immunology Global Commercial Strategy Organization, Horsham, PA, USA, 3Janssen R&D BE, Beerse, Belgium, 4Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 5EVERSANA, Sydney , NS, Canada
PODIUM: APPLICATION OF PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING AND BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL DESIGN METHODS TO INTEGRATE SINGLE-ARM STUDIES INTO NETWORK META-ANALYSES (NMAS)
Virtual ISPOR 2020 | TUESDAY, May 19th, 2020 | 5:45-6:00 PM ET
1EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada, 2Ethicon Inc., Cincinnati, OH, USA, 3EVERSANA, Sydney , NS, Canada
WORKSHOP: DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING AN INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISON (ITC) STRATEGY TO SUPPORT GLOBAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (HTA) AND REIMBURSEMENT SUBMISSIONS
Virtual ISPOR 2020 | WEDNESDAY, May 20th, 2020 | 10:00 AM ET
DISCUSSION LEADERS: Chris Cameron, Ph.D., EVERSANA, Sydney, NS, Canada; Sandhya Bair, Ph.D., Janssen Pharmaceitical NV, Beerse, Belgium; Steven Peterson, MBA, Janssen Immunology Global Commercial Strategy Organization, Horshan, PA, USA.
PURPOSE: This interactive workshop will examine the various indirect comparison methodologies that are available. Commonly used ITC methods such as network meta-analysis (NMA) and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) will be discussed using real-world case studies. Discussion leaders and international experts in ITC from Canada, US and Europe will describe methods to develop and implement global ITC strategies to support HTA and reimbursement submissions. The workshop will also provide guidance on selecting the appropriate ITC method to align with analytic objectives as well as data availability. It will also discuss which methodologies are commonly accepted by HTA agencies, and under what scenarios. The strengths and weaknesses of ITC approaches will also be highlighted by the panelists using real-world case studies.
DESCRIPTION: Indirect treatment comparisons are increasingly used to support healthcare decision making. Guidelines for conduct and transparent reporting of ITCs have been published but fail to discuss strategic considerations regarding selection of the most appropriate indirect comparison method to align with analytic objectives and in considering the types of data available to the research team. This workshop will describe how to develop and implement a global indirect treatment comparisons strategy to support health technology assessment and reimbursement submissions. We will present a matrix of relevant ITC methodologies geared toward guiding users to select the most appropriate ITC methodology for their technology assessment scenario based upon the number of treatments to be compared and the granularity of clinical data available (aggregate versus patient level). Commonly used indirect comparison methods such as NMA and MAIC are plotted within this schematic. Additional considerations of relevance including heterogeneity/inconsistency, feasibility of meta-regression analysis and limitations of clinical trial data will also be discussed. The strengths and weaknesses of using ITC approaches will also be highlighted by the panelists using real-world case studies, together with suggestions for future research.
To register for the event, go to ISPOR website: https://www.ispor.org/conferences-education/conferences/upcoming-conferences/ispor-2020/about/registration-fees