ISPOR 2020 WORKSHOP: Developing Global Indirect Treatment Comparison Programs for Market Access

DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING AN INDIRECT TREATMENT COMPARISON (ITC) PROGRAM TO SUPPORT GLOBAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (HTA) AND REIMBURSEMENT SUBMISSIONS
Virtual ISPOR 2020 | WEDNESDAY, May 20th, 2020 | 10:00 AM ET

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.

Fill out the form below and download the presentation. Schedule a meeting to talk with our experts.

Author
Chris Cameron, PhD
Senior Vice President, Value and Evidence

Dr. Chris Cameron is a global thought leader in health economics and outcomes research with over a decade of experience. Prior to joining EVERSANA, Chris was a partner at Cornerstone Research Group Inc., and…