Literature DB >> 20831304

No head-to-head trial? simulate the missing arms.

J Jaime Caro1, K Jack Ishak.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20831304     DOI: 10.2165/11537420-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  17 in total

1.  Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.

Authors:  Fujian Song; Douglas G Altman; Anne-Marie Glenny; Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-03-01

2.  A meta-analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  J P Pignon; R Arriagada; D C Ihde; D H Johnson; M C Perry; R L Souhami; O Brodin; R A Joss; M S Kies; B Lebeau
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-12-03       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons.

Authors:  Thomas Lumley
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy.

Authors:  Sean R Tunis; Daniel B Stryer; Carolyn M Clancy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-09-24       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Discrete event simulation: the preferred technique for health economic evaluations?

Authors:  Jaime J Caro; Jörgen Möller; Denis Getsios
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information.

Authors:  Gail R Wilensky
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2006-11-07       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 7.  Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  S Schneeweiss
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  Advantages of individual patient data analysis in systematic reviews.

Authors:  Peter Tugwell; J Andre Knottnerus
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Lowering blood homocysteine with folic acid based supplements: meta-analysis of randomised trials. Homocysteine Lowering Trialists' Collaboration.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-03-21

10.  Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons.

Authors:  G Lu; A E Ades
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  20 in total

1.  Perspectives on comparative effectiveness research: views from diverse constituencies.

Authors:  Dave Nellesen; Howard G Birnbaum; Paul E Greenberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments.

Authors:  K Jack Ishak; Irina Proskorovsky; Agnes Benedict
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Cost-effectiveness analyses in multiple sclerosis: a review of modelling approaches.

Authors:  Shien Guo; Christopher Pelligra; Catherine Saint-Laurent Thibault; Luis Hernandez; Anuraag Kansal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Population Adjustment Methods for Indirect Comparisons: A Review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals.

Authors:  David M Phillippo; Sofia Dias; Ahmed Elsada; A E Ades; Nicky J Welton
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  Comparative effectiveness and child health.

Authors:  Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Comparative Effectiveness Research for CAR-T Therapies in Multiple Myeloma: Appropriate Comparisons Require Careful Considerations of Data Sources and Patient Populations.

Authors:  Nina Shah; Matthew Sussman; Concetta Crivera; Satish Valluri; Jennifer Benner; Sundar Jagannath
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 2.859

7.  No evidence of disease activity: indirect comparisons of oral therapies for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Richard Nixon; Niklas Bergvall; Davorka Tomic; Nikolaos Sfikas; Gary Cutter; Gavin Giovannoni
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 3.845

8.  A method for assessing robustness of the results of a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unidentifiable consistency assumption.

Authors:  Jeong-Hwa Yoon; Sofia Dias; Seokyung Hahn
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 9.  A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data.

Authors:  Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Sharon E Straus; Charlene Soobiah; Meghan J Elliott; Andrea C Tricco
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  GetReal in mathematical modelling: a review of studies predicting drug effectiveness in the real world.

Authors:  Klea Panayidou; Sandro Gsteiger; Matthias Egger; Gablu Kilcher; Máximo Carreras; Orestis Efthimiou; Thomas P A Debray; Sven Trelle; Noemi Hummel
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 5.273

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.