RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Controls and governance over the methodology and reporting of indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) have been introduced to minimize bias and ensure scientific credibility and transparency in healthcare decision-making. The objective of this study was to highlight ITC techniques that are key to conducting objective and analytically-sound analyses, and to ascertain circumstantial suitability of ITCs as a source of comparative evidence for healthcare interventions. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE® was searched from January 2010 through August 2023 to identify publicly available ITC-related documents (i.e., guidelines and best practices) in the English language. This was supplemented with hand-searches of websites of various international organizations, regulatory agencies, and reimbursement agencies of Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. The jurisdiction-specific ITC methodology and reporting recommendations were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight guidelines from 10 authorities worldwide were included for synthesis. Many of the included guidelines were updated within the last five years and commonly cited the absence of direct comparative studies as primary justification for employing ITCs. Most jurisdictions favored population-adjusted or anchored ITC techniques opposed to naïve comparisons. Recommendations on the reporting and presentation of these ITCs varied across authorities; however, there was some overlap among the key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Given the challenges of conducting head-to-head randomized controlled trials, comparative data from ITCs offer valuable insights into clinical effectiveness. As such, multiple ITC guidelines have emerged worldwide. According to the most recent versions of the guidelines, the suitability and subsequent acceptability of the ITC technique employed depends on the data sources, available evidence, and magnitude of benefit/uncertainty.
RESUMEN
Objectives: Baseline presence of nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) resistance-associated variants can attenuate the efficacy of new direct-acting antivirals. A potential method to attain the higher efficacy would be to screen for NS5A polymorphisms prior to the initiation of therapy and to adjust the treatment length based on the test results. However, baseline testing adds additional costs and it is unclear whether this would represent a high value strategy for chronic hepatitis C in China. Methods: A hybrid model compared 1) standard 12-weeks treatment (no testing), 2) shortened 8-weeks treatment (no testing), and 3) baseline testing with 12-/8-weeks treatment for those with/without NS5A polymorphisms from a lifetime Chinese health care payer perspective. All model inputs were retrieved from clinical trials and publically available literature. And sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty. Results: Baseline testing was associated with overall increase in total health care cost of USD 13.50 and in QALYs of 0.002 compared with standard 12-weeks treatment (no testing), yielded in an ICER of USD 6750/QALY gained. Scenario analyses suggested that shortened 8-weeks treatment (no testing) was found to be lower costs and great QALYs compared with other two strategies when the sustained virologic response (SVR) rate increased to 95%. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust. Conclusions: Our results suggest prior assessment of NS5A sensitivity followed by optimizing treatment duration was an economic strategy. In addition, shortened 8-weeks treatment (no testing) was shown to be dominant with the SVR rate increased to 95%.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF). However, decision-makers need to determine whether its benefits are worth the additional costs, given the low-cost generic status of traditional standard of care. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project clinical and economic outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril for 66-year-old patients with HF over 10 years. Key health states included New York Heart Association classes I-IV and deaths; patients in each state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death. Sacubitril/valsartan benefits were modeled by applying the hazard ratios (HRs) in PARADIGM-HF trial to baseline probabilities. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril Results: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ICER of SGD 74,592 (USD 55,198) per QALY gained. A major driver of cost-effectiveness was the cardiovascular mortality benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. The uncertainty of this treatment benefit in the Asian sub-group was tested in sensitivity analyses using a HR of 1 as an upper limit, where the ICERs ranged from SGD 41,019 (USD 30,354) to SGD 1,447,103 (USD 1,070,856) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective was below 1%, 12%, and 71% at SGD 20,000, SGD 50,000, and SGD 100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At the current daily price sacubitril/valsartan may not represent good value for limited healthcare dollars compared to enalapril in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in HF in the Singapore healthcare setting. This study highlights the cost-benefit trade-off that healthcare professionals and patients face when considering therapy.
