Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2010

01-10-2010 | Methodological Considerations

No Head-to-Head Trial? Simulate the Missing Arms

Authors: Dr J.Jaime Caro, K. Jack Ishak

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 10/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Establishing efficacy relative to placebo is no longer sufficient for payers to agree to cover new interventions. Evidence from comparisons of competing interventions is increasingly important, although head-to-head studies are seldom available to inform decisions. In this article, we describe the simulated treatment comparison (STC) approach to incorporating ‘missing arms’ into an existing trial. This approach yields a simulated head-to-head trial and can address many of the differences among source trials. It provides inputs for economic models and can inform decision makers until actual trial data are available.
A simulation is constructed to replicate an index trial, including enrolment, randomization and follow-up of patients. The simulation is driven by predictive equations derived from the index trial. Separate data for the comparators are used to calibrate the index equations to reflect the alternative interventions. The simulation is used to add the missing arms to the index trial and estimate the results that would have been obtained in a head-to-head trial. The STC can also be used to estimate results in various settings and populations and to explore variations in the trial design. An STC offers a way to derive comparative effectiveness in the absence of direct trial evidence and a platform to test design features that may help in planning future head-to-head studies.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Reinhardt UE. An information infrastructure for the pharmaceutical market. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23 (1): 107–12CrossRef Reinhardt UE. An information infrastructure for the pharmaceutical market. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23 (1): 107–12CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wilensky GR. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25 (6): w572–85CrossRef Wilensky GR. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25 (6): w572–85CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Schneeweis S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 82: 143–56CrossRef Schneeweis S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 82: 143–56CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290 (12): 1624–32PubMedCrossRef Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290 (12): 1624–32PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 1–19PubMedCrossRef Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 1–19PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23 (20): 3105–24PubMedCrossRef Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23 (20): 3105–24PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002; 21 (16): 2313–24PubMedCrossRef Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002; 21 (16): 2313–24PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Homocysteine Lowering Trialists’ Collaboration. Lowering blood homocysteine with folic acid based supplements:metaanalysis of randomised trials. BMJ 1998; 316 (7135): 894–8CrossRef Homocysteine Lowering Trialists’ Collaboration. Lowering blood homocysteine with folic acid based supplements:metaanalysis of randomised trials. BMJ 1998; 316 (7135): 894–8CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1995; 311: 899–909CrossRef Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1995; 311: 899–909CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Single-patient data meta-analysis of 3453 postoperative patients: oral tramadol versus placebo, codeine and combination analgesics. Pain 1997; 69 (3): 287–94PubMedCrossRef Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Single-patient data meta-analysis of 3453 postoperative patients: oral tramadol versus placebo, codeine and combination analgesics. Pain 1997; 69 (3): 287–94PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pignon JP, Arriagada R, Ihde DC, et al. A meta-analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (23): 1618–24PubMedCrossRef Pignon JP, Arriagada R, Ihde DC, et al. A meta-analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (23): 1618–24PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tugwell P, Knottnerus JA. Advantages of individual patient data analysis in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (3): 233–4PubMedCrossRef Tugwell P, Knottnerus JA. Advantages of individual patient data analysis in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (3): 233–4PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Van Walraven C. Individual patient meta-analysis: rewards and challenges. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (3): 235–7PubMedCrossRef Van Walraven C. Individual patient meta-analysis: rewards and challenges. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (3): 235–7PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Caro JJ. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (4): 323–32PubMedCrossRef Caro JJ. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (4): 323–32PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Kelton WD, Sadowski RP, Sturrock DT, editors. Simulation with Arena. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007 Kelton WD, Sadowski RP, Sturrock DT, editors. Simulation with Arena. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007
16.
go back to reference Caro JJ, Moller J, Getsios D. Discrete event simulation: the preferred technique for health economic evaluations? Value Health. In press Caro JJ, Moller J, Getsios D. Discrete event simulation: the preferred technique for health economic evaluations? Value Health. In press
17.
go back to reference Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 326 (7387): 472PubMedCrossRef Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 326 (7387): 472PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ades AE, Lu G. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. JASA 2006; 101 (474): 447–59CrossRef Ades AE, Lu G. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. JASA 2006; 101 (474): 447–59CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JP. The interpretation of randomeffects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Making 2005; 25 (6): 646–54PubMedCrossRef Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JP. The interpretation of randomeffects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Making 2005; 25 (6): 646–54PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
No Head-to-Head Trial? Simulate the Missing Arms
Authors
Dr J.Jaime Caro
K. Jack Ishak
Publication date
01-10-2010
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 10/2010
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11537420-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 10/2010

PharmacoEconomics 10/2010 Go to the issue