Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Economics Review 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research

Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland

Authors: Andrea Lebioda, David Gasche, Franz-Werner Dippel, Karlheinz Theobald, Stefan Plantör

Published in: Health Economics Review | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Early benefit assessment in Germany under the legislative framework of AMNOG (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz) requires direct comparisons of the new drug with appropriate comparators determined by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). In case no head-to-head studies are available for direct comparisons, the submission of indirect comparisons is permitted to assess the additional benefit of the new drug. However, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) states a clear preference for head-to-head trials and defines strict requirements for indirect comparisons to be considered in the benefit assessment. Similar requirements also exist in other countries with mandatory health technology assessments (HTA), like France, England and Scotland. Our evaluation shows that a comparison of the different HTA regarding indirect comparisons is difficult. Overall, external preconditions and methodological requirements are demanding and hardly to fulfill by pharmaceutical companies for implementation of indirect comparisons in early benefit assessment. The determination of the appropriate comparators, outcomes, patient subgroups and study choice are the main target within indirect comparisons for the future. To compare and assess submitted indirect comparisons it would be desirable that a transparent process was established, including the mandatory publication of HTA-reports within Europe and international guidelines, accepted by a large number of HTA-agencies.
JEL classification: I18.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC: Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1. Value Health 2011, 14: 417–428. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002CrossRefPubMed Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC: Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1. Value Health 2011, 14: 417–428. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Gartlehner G, Moore CG: Direct versus indirect comparisons: a summary of the evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008, 24: 170–177. 10.1017/S0266462308080240CrossRefPubMed Gartlehner G, Moore CG: Direct versus indirect comparisons: a summary of the evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008, 24: 170–177. 10.1017/S0266462308080240CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD: The result of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50: 683–691. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00049-8CrossRefPubMed Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD: The result of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50: 683–691. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00049-8CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG): IQWiG - General Methods - Version 4.1. 2013. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG): IQWiG - General Methods - Version 4.1. 2013.
8.
go back to reference Lumley T: Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002, 21: 2313–2324. 10.1002/sim.1201CrossRefPubMed Lumley T: Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002, 21: 2313–2324. 10.1002/sim.1201CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Sutton A, Ades A, Cooper N, Abrams K: Use of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26: 753–767. 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00006CrossRefPubMed Sutton A, Ades A, Cooper N, Abrams K: Use of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26: 753–767. 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00006CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams K: An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ 1999, 319: 508–512. 10.1136/bmj.319.7208.508PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams K: An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ 1999, 319: 508–512. 10.1136/bmj.319.7208.508PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, Abrams K, Cooper N, Welton N, Lu G: Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24: 1–19. 10.2165/00019053-200624010-00001CrossRefPubMed Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, Abrams K, Cooper N, Welton N, Lu G: Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006, 24: 1–19. 10.2165/00019053-200624010-00001CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappalleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, Barrett A: Conducting Indirect-Treatment-Comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices—Part 2. Value Health 2011, 14: 429–437. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011CrossRefPubMed Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappalleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, Barrett A: Conducting Indirect-Treatment-Comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis Studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices—Part 2. Value Health 2011, 14: 429–437. 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G: Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. Research Methods & Reporting. BMJ 2010, 340: c221. 10.1136/bmj.c221CrossRefPubMed Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G: Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. Research Methods & Reporting. BMJ 2010, 340: c221. 10.1136/bmj.c221CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Teramukai S, Matsuyama Y, Mizuno S, Sakamoto J: Individual Patient-level and Study-level Meta-analysis for Investigating Modifiers of Treatment Effect. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004, 34: 717–721. 10.1093/jjco/hyh138CrossRefPubMed Teramukai S, Matsuyama Y, Mizuno S, Sakamoto J: Individual Patient-level and Study-level Meta-analysis for Investigating Modifiers of Treatment Effect. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004, 34: 717–721. 10.1093/jjco/hyh138CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny A-M, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG: Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009, 338: b1147. 10.1136/bmj.b1147PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny A-M, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG: Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009, 338: b1147. 10.1136/bmj.b1147PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
122.
go back to reference Moeser G, Ecker C: Indirekte Vergleiche in der frühen Nutzenbewertung in Deutschland – eine Bestandsaufnahme. Gesundh ökon Qual manag 2013, 18: 235–243. 10.1055/s-0033-1355483CrossRef Moeser G, Ecker C: Indirekte Vergleiche in der frühen Nutzenbewertung in Deutschland – eine Bestandsaufnahme. Gesundh ökon Qual manag 2013, 18: 235–243. 10.1055/s-0033-1355483CrossRef
123.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappalleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, Salanti G: Indirect Treatment Comparison/Network Meta-Analysis Study Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility to Inform Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report. Value Health 2014, 17: 157–173. 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004CrossRefPubMed Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappalleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, Salanti G: Indirect Treatment Comparison/Network Meta-Analysis Study Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility to Inform Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report. Value Health 2014, 17: 157–173. 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.004CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland
Authors
Andrea Lebioda
David Gasche
Franz-Werner Dippel
Karlheinz Theobald
Stefan Plantör
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Health Economics Review / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 2191-1991
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-014-0031-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Health Economics Review 1/2014 Go to the issue