Evaluation of Flexible Parametric Relative Survival Approaches for Enforcing Long-Term Constraints When Extrapolating All-Cause Survival.

OBJECTIVES: Parametric models are used to estimate the lifetime benefit of an intervention beyond the range of trial follow-up. Recent recommendations have suggested more flexible survival approaches and the use of external data when extrapolating. Both of these can be realized by using flexible parametric relative survival modeling. The overall aim of this article is to introduce and contrast various approaches for applying constraints on the long-term disease-related (excess) mortality including cure models and evaluate the consequent implications for extrapolation. METHODS: We describe flexible parametric relative survival modeling approaches. We then introduce various options for constraining the long-term excess mortality and compare the performance of each method in simulated data. These methods include fitting a standard flexible parametric relative survival model, enforcing statistical cure, and forcing the long-term excess mortality to converge to a constant. We simulate various scenarios, including where statistical cure is reasonable and where the long-term excess mortality persists. RESULTS: The compared approaches showed similar survival fits within the follow-up period. However, when extrapolating the all-cause survival beyond trial follow-up, there is variation depending on the assumption made about the long-term excess mortality. Altering the time point from which the excess mortality is constrained enables further flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: The various constraints can lead to applying explicit assumptions when extrapolating, which could lead to more plausible survival extrapolations. The inclusion of general population mortality directly into the model-building process, which is possible for all considered approaches, should be adopted more widely in survival extrapolation in health technology assessment.

Perils of Randomized Controlled Trial Survival Extrapolation Assuming Treatment Effect Waning: Why the Distinction Between Marginal and Conditional Estimates Matters.

OBJECTIVES: A long-term, constant, protective treatment effect is a strong assumption when extrapolating survival beyond clinical trial follow-up; hence, sensitivity to treatment effect waning is commonly assessed for economic evaluations. Forcing a hazard ratio (HR) to 1 does not necessarily estimate loss of individual-level treatment effect accurately because of HR selection bias. A simulation study was designed to explore the behavior of marginal HRs under a waning conditional (individual-level) treatment effect and demonstrate bias in forcing a marginal HR to 1 when the estimand is "survival difference with individual-level waning". METHODS: Data were simulated under 4 parameter combinations (varying prognostic strength of heterogeneity and treatment effect). Time-varying marginal HRs were estimated in scenarios where the true conditional HR attenuated to 1. Restricted mean survival time differences, estimated having constrained the marginal HR to 1, were compared with true values to assess bias induced by marginal constraints. RESULTS: Under loss of conditional treatment effect, the marginal HR took a value >1 because of covariate imbalances. Constraining this value to 1 lead to restricted mean survival time difference bias of up to 0.8 years (57% increase). Inflation of effect size estimates also increased with the magnitude of initial protective treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Important differences exist between survival extrapolations assuming marginal versus conditional treatment effect waning. When a marginal HR is constrained to 1 to assess efficacy under individual-level treatment effect waning, the survival benefits associated with the new treatment will be overestimated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be underestimated.

A cautionary tale: an evaluation of the performance of treatment switching adjustment methods in a real world case study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment switching in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a problem for health technology assessment when substantial proportions of patients switch onto effective treatments that would not be available in standard clinical practice. Often statistical methods are used to adjust for switching: these can be applied in different ways, and performance has been assessed in simulation studies, but not in real-world case studies. We assessed the performance of adjustment methods described in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 16, applying them to an RCT comparing panitumumab to best supportive care (BSC) in colorectal cancer, in which 76% of patients randomised to BSC switched onto panitumumab. The RCT resulted in intention-to-treat hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.22) for all patients, and 0.99 (95% CI 0.75-1.29) for patients with wild-type KRAS (Kirsten rat sarcoma virus). METHODS: We tested several applications of inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW), rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM) and simple and complex two-stage estimation (TSE) to estimate treatment effects that would have been observed if BSC patients had not switched onto panitumumab. To assess the performance of these analyses we ascertained the true effectiveness of panitumumab based on: (i) subsequent RCTs of panitumumab that disallowed treatment switching; (ii) studies of cetuximab that disallowed treatment switching, (iii) analyses demonstrating that only patients with wild-type KRAS benefit from panitumumab. These sources suggest the true OS HR for panitumumab is 0.76-0.77 (95% CI 0.60-0.98) for all patients, and 0.55-0.73 (95% CI 0.41-0.93) for patients with wild-type KRAS. RESULTS: Some applications of IPCW and TSE provided treatment effect estimates that closely matched the point-estimates and CIs of the expected truths. However, other applications produced estimates towards the boundaries of the expected truths, with some TSE applications producing estimates that lay outside the expected true confidence intervals. The RPSFTM performed relatively poorly, with all applications providing treatment effect estimates close to 1, often with extremely wide confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment analyses may provide unreliable results. How each method is applied must be scrutinised to assess reliability.

Is Intention to Treat Still the Gold Standard or Should Health Technology Assessment Agencies Embrace a Broader Estimands Framework?: Insights and Perspectives From the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen on the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9 (R1) Addendum.

OBJECTIVES: The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E9 (R1) addendum will have an important impact on the design and analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials, which represent crucial sources of evidence in health technology assessments, and on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle in particular. This article brings together a task force of health economists and statisticians in academic institutes and the pharmaceutical industry, to examine the implications of the addendum from the perspective of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and to address the question of whether the ITT principle should be considered the gold standard for estimating treatment effects. METHODS: We review the ITT principle, as introduced in the ICH E9 guideline. We then present an overview of the ICH E9 (R1) addendum and its estimand framework, highlighting its premise and the proposed strategies for handling intercurrent events, and examine some cases among submissions to IQWiG and NICE. RESULTS: IQWiG and NICE appear to have diverging perspectives around the relevance of the ITT principle and, in particular, the acceptance of hypothetical strategies for estimating treatment effects, as suggested by examples where the sponsor proposed an alternative approach to the ITT principle when accounting for treatment switching for interventional oncology trials. CONCLUSIONS: The ICH E9 (R1) addendum supports the use of methods that depart from the ITT principle. The relevance of estimands using these methods depends on the perspectives and objectives of payers. It is challenging to design a study that meets all stakeholders' research questions. Different estimands may serve to answer different relevant questions or decision problems.

Prevalence of Immature Survival Data for Anti-Cancer Drugs Presented to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Impact on Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: This research aims to explore how often the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) uses immature overall survival data to inform reimbursement decisions on cancer treatments, and the implications of this for resource allocation decisions. METHODS: NICE cancer technology appraisals published between 2015 and 2017 were reviewed to determine the prevalence of using immature survival data. A case study was used to demonstrate the potential impact of basing decisions on immature data. The economic model submitted by the company was reconstructed and was populated first using survival data available at the time of the appraisal, and then using data from an updated data cut published after the appraisal concluded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) obtained using the different data cuts were compared. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken and expected value of perfect information estimated. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of NICE cancer technology appraisals used immature data to inform reimbursement decisions. In the case study, NICE gave a positive recommendation for a limited patient subgroup, with ICERs too high in the complete patient population. ICERs were dramatically lower when the final data cut was used, irrespective of the parametric model used to model survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value of perfect information may not have fully characterized uncertainty, because as they did not account for structural uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Analyses of cancer treatments using immature survival data may result in incorrect estimates of survival benefit and cost-effectiveness, potentially leading to inappropriate funding decisions. This research highlights the importance of revisiting past decisions when updated data cuts become available.

Self-managed, computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for chronic aphasia post-stroke: An economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for people with aphasia post-stroke. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness modelling over a life-time period, taking a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social service perspective. SETTING: Based on the Big CACTUS randomised controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. PARTICIPANTS: Big CACTUS included 278 people with long-standing aphasia post-stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Computerised word finding therapy plus usual care; usual care alone; usual care plus attention control. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated, comparing the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for each intervention. Credible intervals (CrI) for costs and QALYs, and probabilities of cost-effectiveness, were obtained using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Subgroup and scenario analyses investigated cost-effectiveness in different subsets of the population, and the sensitivity of results to key model inputs. RESULTS: Adding computerised word finding therapy to usual care had an ICER of £42,686 per QALY gained compared with usual care alone (incremental QALY gain: 0.02 per patient (95% CrI: -0.05 to 0.10); incremental costs: £732.73 per patient (95% CrI: £674.23 to £798.05)). ICERs for subgroups with mild or moderate word finding difficulties were £22,371 and £21,262 per QALY gained respectively. CONCLUSION: Computerised word finding therapy represents a low cost add-on to usual care, but QALY gains and estimates of cost-effectiveness are uncertain. Computerised therapy is more likely to be cost-effective for people with mild or moderate, as opposed to severe, word finding difficulties.

Challenges in valuing and paying for combination regimens in oncology: reporting the perspectives of a multi-stakeholder, international workshop.

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly common for two or more treatments for cancer to be combined as a single regimen. Determining value and appropriate payment for such regimens can be challenging. This study discusses these challenges, and possible solutions. METHODS: Stakeholders from around the world attended a 2-day workshop, supported by a background paper. This study captures key outcomes from the discussion, but is not a consensus statement. RESULTS: Workshop attendees agreed that combining on-patent treatments can result in affordability and value for money challenges that delay or deny patient access to clinically effective treatments in many health systems. Options for addressing these challenges include: (i) Increasing the value of combination therapies through improved clinical development; (ii) Willingness to pay more for combinations than for single drugs offering similar benefit, or; (iii) Aligning the cost of constituent therapies with their value within a regimen. Workshop attendees felt that (i) and (iii) merited further discussion, whereas (ii) was unlikely to be justifiable. Views differed on the feasibility of (i). Key to (iii) would be systems allowing different prices to apply to different uses of a drug. CONCLUSIONS: Common ground was identified on immediate actions to improve access to combination regimens. These include an exploration of the legal challenges associated with price negotiations, and ensuring that pricing systems can support implementation of negotiated prices for specific uses. Improvements to clinical development and trial design should be pursued in the medium and longer term.

Adjusting for Treatment Switching in Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Reporting.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the quality of reporting on the application of switching adjustment approaches in published oncology trials and industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Although methods such as the rank preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM) and inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) have been developed to address treatment switching, the approaches are not widely accepted within health technology assessment. This limited acceptance may partly be a consequence of poor reporting on their application. METHODS: Published trials and industry submissions were obtained from searches of PubMed and nice.org.uk, respectively. The quality of reporting in these studies was judged against a checklist of reporting recommendations, which was developed by the authors based on detailed considerations of the methods. RESULTS: Thirteen published trials and 8 submissions to nice.org.uk satisfied inclusion criteria. The quality of reporting around the implementation of the RPSFTM and IPCW methods was generally poor. Few studies stated whether the adjustment approach was prespecified, more than a third failed to provide any justification for the chosen method, and nearly half neglected to perform sensitivity analyses. Further, it was often unclear how the RPSFTM and IPCW methods were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate reporting on the application of switching adjustment methods increases uncertainty around results, which may contribute to the limited acceptance of these methods by decision makers. The proposed reporting recommendations aim to support the improved interpretation of analyses undertaken to adjust for treatment switching.

Survival Extrapolation in Cancer Immunotherapy: A Validation-Based Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors may provide long-term survival benefits via a cured proportion, yet data are usually insufficient to prove this upon submission to health technology assessment bodies. OBJECTIVE: We revisited the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessment of ipilimumab in melanoma (TA319). We used updated data from the pivotal trial to assess the accuracy of the extrapolation methods used and compared these to previously unused techniques to establish whether an alternative extrapolation may have provided more accurate survival projections. METHODS: We compared projections from the piecewise survival model used in TA319 and those produced by alternative models (fit to trial data with minimum follow-up of 3 years) to a longer-term data cut (5-year follow-up). We also compared projections to external data to help assess validity. Alternative approaches considered were parametric, spline-based, mixture, and mixture-cure models. RESULTS: Only the survival model used in TA319 and a mixture-cure model provided 5-year survival predictions close to those observed in the 5-year follow-up data set. Standard parametric, spline, and non-curative-mixture models substantially underestimated 5-year survival. Survival estimates from the TA319 model and the mixture-cure model diverge considerably after 5 years and remain unvalidated. CONCLUSIONS: In our case study, only models that incorporated an element of external information (through a cure fraction combined with background mortality rates or using registry data) provided accurate estimates of 5-year survival. Flexible models that were able to capture the complex hazard functions observed during the trial, but which did not incorporate external information, extrapolated poorly.

Impact of Nonrandomized Dropout on Treatment Switching Adjustment in the Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis CLARITY Trial and the CLARITY Extension Study.

OBJECTIVES: Statistical methods to adjust for treatment switching are commonly applied to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology. Nevertheless, RCTs with extension studies incorporating nonrandomized dropout require consideration of alternative adjustment methods. The current study used a recognized method and a novel method to adjust for treatment switching in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: The Cladribine Tablets Treating Multiple Sclerosis Orally (CLARITY) RCT evaluated the efficacy of cladribine versus placebo over 96 weeks. Many (but not all) CLARITY participants enrolled in the 96-week CLARITY extension study; placebo-treated patients from CLARITY received cladribine (PP→LL), and cladribine-treated patients were re-randomized to placebo (LL→PP) or continued cladribine (LL→LL). End points were time to first qualifying relapse (FQR) and time to 3-month and 6-month confirmed disability progression (3mCDP, 6mCDP). We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of the LL→PP treatment strategy compared with a counterfactual (unobserved) PP→PP strategy. We applied the commonly used rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM) and a novel approach that combined propensity score matching (PSM) with inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW). RESULTS: The RPSFTM resulted in LL→PP versus PP→PP hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.62) for FQR, 0.62 (95% CI 0.46-0.84) for 3mCDP, and 0.62 (95% CI 0.44-0.88) for 6mCDP. The PSM+IPCW resulted in HRs of 0.47 (95% CI 0.38-0.63) for FQR, 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.86) for 3mCDP, and 0.63 (95% CI 0.40-0.87) for 6mCDP. CONCLUSIONS: The PSM+IPCW HRs were consistent with those from the RPSFTM, suggesting that the results were not substantially biased by informative dropout, assuming that all relevant confounders were controlled for. There was no statistical evidence of a reduction in the cladribine treatment effect during the extension period.

The Cost of Costing Treatments Incorrectly: Errors in the Application of Drug Prices in Economic Evaluation Due to Failing to Account for the Distribution of Patient Weight.

BACKGROUND: The cost of pharmaceuticals dosed by weight or body surface area (BSA) can be estimated in several ways for economic evaluations. A review of 20 recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals showed that 17 of them took the mean weight or BSA of patients, 2 costed the individual patient data from trials, and 2 fitted a distribution to patient-level data. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the estimated drug costs using different methodologies to account for patient characteristics for pharmaceuticals with a weight- or BSA-based posology. The secondary objective was to explore the suitability of general population data as a proxy for patient-level data. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from three clinical trials and used to calculate a hypothetical cost per administration of eight licensed pharmaceuticals, applying the three methods used in recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. The same analysis was performed using data from the Health Survey for England (in place of patient-level data) to investigate the validity of using general population data as a substitute for patient-level data. RESULTS: Compared with using patient-level data from clinical trials, the mean patient characteristics (weight or BSA) led to an underestimation of drug cost by 6.1% (range +1.5% to -25.5%). Fitting a distribution to patient-level data led to a mean difference of +0.04%. All estimates were consistent using general population data. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of drug costs in health economic evaluation should account for the distribution in weight or BSA to produce accurate results. When patient data are not available, general population data may be used as an alternative.

TREATMENT SWITCHING: STATISTICAL AND DECISION-MAKING CHALLENGES AND APPROACHES.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment switching refers to the situation in a randomized controlled trial where patients switch from their randomly assigned treatment onto an alternative. Often, switching is from the control group onto the experimental treatment. In this instance, a standard intention-to-treat analysis does not identify the true comparative effectiveness of the treatments under investigation. We aim to describe statistical methods for adjusting for treatment switching in a comprehensible way for nonstatisticians, and to summarize views on these methods expressed by stakeholders at the 2014 Adelaide International Workshop on Treatment Switching in Clinical Trials. METHODS: We describe three statistical methods used to adjust for treatment switching: marginal structural models, two-stage adjustment, and rank preserving structural failure time models. We draw upon discussion heard at the Adelaide International Workshop to explore the views of stakeholders on the acceptability of these methods. RESULTS: Stakeholders noted that adjustment methods are based on assumptions, the validity of which may often be questionable. There was disagreement on the acceptability of adjustment methods, but consensus that when these are used, they should be justified rigorously. The utility of adjustment methods depends upon the decision being made and the processes used by the decision-maker. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment switching makes estimating the true comparative effect of a new treatment challenging. However, many decision-makers have reservations with adjustment methods. These, and how they affect the utility of adjustment methods, require further exploration. Further technical work is required to develop adjustment methods to meet real world needs, to enhance their acceptability to decision-makers.

TREATMENT SWITCHING IN CANCER TRIALS: ISSUES AND PROPOSALS.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment switching occurs when patients in a randomized clinical trial switch from the treatment initially assigned to them to another treatment, typically from the control to experimental treatment. This study discusses the issues this raises and possible approaches to addressing them in trials of cancer drugs. METHODS: Stakeholders from around the world were invited to a 1.5-day Workshop in Adelaide, Australia. This study attempts to capture the key points from the discussion and the perspectives of the various stakeholder groups, but is not a formal consensus statement. RESULTS: Treatment switching raises challenging ethical issues with arguments for and against allowing it. It is increasingly common in cancer drug trials and presents challenges for the interpretation of results by regulators, clinicians, patients, and payers. Proposals are offered for good practice in the design, management, and analysis of trials and wider development programs for cancer drugs in which treatment switching has occurred or is likely to. Recommendations are also offered for further action to improve understanding of the importance and challenges of treatment switching and to promote agreement between key stakeholders on guidelines and other steps to address these challenges. CONCLUSIONS: The handling of treatment switching in trials is of concern to all stakeholders. On the basis of the discussions at the Adelaide International Workshop, there would appear to be common ground on approaches to addressing treatment switching in cancer trials and scope for the development of formal guidelines to inform the work of regulators, payers, industry, trial designers and other stakeholders.

Adjusting for the Confounding Effects of Treatment Switching-The BREAK-3 Trial: Dabrafenib Versus Dacarbazine.

BACKGROUND: Patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E mutation-positive melanoma in BREAK-3 showed a median overall survival (OS) of 18.2 months for dabrafenib versus 15.6 months for dacarbazine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.21). Because patients receiving dacarbazine were allowed to switch to dabrafenib at disease progression, we attempted to adjust for the confounding effects on OS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTMs) and the iterative parameter estimation (IPE) algorithm were used. Two analyses, "treatment group" (assumes treatment effect could continue until death) and "on-treatment observed" (assumes treatment effect disappears with discontinuation), were used to test the assumptions around the durability of the treatment effect. RESULTS: A total of 36 of 63 patients (57%) receiving dacarbazine switched to dabrafenib. The adjusted OS HRs ranged from 0.50 to 0.55, depending on the analysis. The RPSFTM and IPE "treatment group" and "on-treatment observed" analyses performed similarly well. CONCLUSION: RPSFTM and IPE analyses resulted in point estimates for the OS HR that indicate a substantial increase in the treatment effect compared with the unadjusted OS HR of 0.76. The results are uncertain because of the assumptions associated with the adjustment methods. The confidence intervals continued to cross 1.00; thus, the adjusted estimates did not provide statistically significant evidence of a treatment benefit on survival. However, it is clear that a standard intention-to-treat analysis will be confounded in the presence of treatment switching-a reliance on unadjusted analyses could lead to inappropriate practice. Adjustment analyses provide useful additional information on the estimated treatment effects to inform decision making. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Treatment switching is common in oncology trials, and the implications of this for the interpretation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the novel treatment are important to consider. If patients who switch treatments benefit from the experimental treatment and a standard intention-to-treat analysis is conducted, the overall survival advantage associated with the new treatment could be underestimated. The present study applied established statistical methods to adjust for treatment switching in a trial that compared dabrafenib and dacarbazine for metastatic melanoma. The results showed that this led to a substantially increased estimate of the overall survival treatment effect associated with dabrafenib.

Mixture and Non-mixture Cure Models for Health Technology Assessment: What You Need to Know.

There is increasing interest in the use of cure modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA) due to the development of new treatments that appear to offer the potential for cure in some patients. However, cure models are often not included in evidence dossiers submitted to HTA agencies, and they are relatively rarely relied upon to inform decision-making. This is likely due to a lack of understanding of how cure models work, what they assume, and how reliable they are. In this tutorial we explain why and when cure models may be useful for HTA, describe the key characteristics of mixture and non-mixture cure models, and demonstrate their use in a range of scenarios, providing Stata code. We highlight key issues that must be taken into account by analysts when fitting these models and by reviewers and decision-makers when interpreting their predictions. In particular, we note that flexible parametric non-mixture cure models have not been used in HTA, but they offer advantages that make them well suited to an HTA context when a cure assumption is valid but follow-up is limited.

Challenges and Opportunities in Interdisciplinary Research and Real-World Data for Treatment Sequences in Health Technology Assessments.

With an ever-increasing number of treatment options, the assessment of treatment sequences has become crucial in health technology assessment (HTA). This review systematically explores the multifaceted challenges inherent in evaluating sequences, delving into their interplay and nuances that go beyond economic model structures. We synthesised a 'roadmap' of literature from key methodological studies, highlighting the evolution of recent advances and emerging research themes. These insights were compared against HTA guidelines to identify potential avenues for future research. Our findings reveal a spectrum of challenges in sequence evaluation, encompassing selecting appropriate decision-analytic modelling approaches and comparators, deriving appropriate clinical effectiveness evidence in the face of data scarcity, scrutinising effectiveness assumptions and statistical adjustments, considering treatment displacement, and optimising model computations. Integrating methodologies from diverse disciplines-statistics, epidemiology, causal inference, operational research and computer science-has demonstrated promise in addressing these challenges. An updated review of application studies is warranted to provide detailed insights into the extent and manner in which these methodologies have been implemented. Data scarcity on the effectiveness of treatment sequences emerged as a dominant concern, especially because treatment sequences are rarely compared in clinical trials. Real-world data (RWD) provide an alternative means for capturing evidence on effectiveness and future research should prioritise harnessing causal inference methods, particularly Target Trial Emulation, to evaluate treatment sequence effectiveness using RWD. This approach is also adaptable for analysing trials harbouring sequencing information and adjusting indirect comparisons when collating evidence from heterogeneous sources. Such investigative efforts could lend support to reviews of HTA recommendations and contribute to synthesising external control arms involving treatment sequences.

MPES-R: Multi-Parameter Evidence Synthesis in R for Survival Extrapolation-A Tutorial.

Survival extrapolation often plays an important role in health technology assessment (HTA), and there are a range of different approaches available. Approaches that can leverage external evidence (i.e. data or information collected outside the main data source of interest) may be helpful, given the extent of uncertainty often present when determining a suitable survival extrapolation. One of these methods is the multi-parameter evidence synthesis (MPES) approach, first proposed for use in HTA by Guyot et al., and more recently by Jackson. While MPES has potential benefits over conventional extrapolation approaches (such as simple or flexible parametric models), it is more computationally complex and requires use of specialist software. This tutorial presents an introduction to MPES for HTA, alongside a user-friendly, publicly available operationalisation of Guyot's original MPES that can be executed using the statistical software package R. Through two case studies, both Guyot's and Jackson's MPES approaches are explored, along with sensitivity analyses relevant to HTA. Finally, the discussion section of the tutorial details important considerations for analysts considering use of an MPES approach, along with potential further developments. MPES has not been used often in HTA, and so there are limited examples of how it has been used and perceived. However, this tutorial may aid future research efforts exploring the use of MPES further.

Treatment Effect Waning in Immuno-oncology Health Technology Assessments: A Review of Assumptions and Supporting Evidence with Proposals to Guide Modelling.

Treatment effect waning (TEW) refers to the attenuation of treatment effects over time. Assumptions of a sustained immuno-oncologic treatment effect have been a source of contention in health technology assessment (HTA). We review how TEW has been addressed in HTA and in the wider scientific literature. We analysed company submissions to English language HTA agencies and summarised methods and assumptions used. We subsequently reviewed TEW-related work in the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database and conducted a targeted literature review (TLR) for evidence of the maintenance of immuno-oncology (IO) treatment effects post-treatment discontinuation. We found no standardised approach adopted by companies in submissions to HTA agencies, with immediate TEW most used in scenario analyses. Independently fitted survival models do however suggest TEW may often be implicitly modelled. Materials in the ISPOR scientific database suggest gradual TEW is more plausible than immediate TEW. The TLR uncovered evidence of durable survival in patients treated with IOs but no evidence that directly addresses the presence or absence of TEW. Our HTA review shows the need for a consistent and appropriate implementation of TEW in oncology appraisals. However, the TLR highlights the absence of direct evidence on TEW in literature, as TEW is defined in terms of relative treatment effects-not absolute survival. We propose a sequence of steps for analysts to use when assessing whether a TEW scenario is necessary and appropriate to present in appraisals of IOs.

An Evaluation of an Algorithm for the Selection of Flexible Survival Models for Cancer Immunotherapies: Pass or Fail?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Accurately extrapolating survival beyond trial follow-up is essential in a health technology assessment where model choice often substantially impacts estimates of clinical and cost effectiveness. Evidence suggests standard parametric models often provide poor fits to long-term data from immuno-oncology trials. Palmer et al. developed an algorithm to aid the selection of more flexible survival models for these interventions. We assess the usability of the algorithm, identify areas for improvement and evaluate whether it effectively identifies models capable of accurate extrapolation. METHODS: We applied the Palmer algorithm to the CheckMate-649 trial, which investigated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the algorithm's performance by comparing survival estimates from identified models using the 12-month data cut to survival observed in the 48-month data cut. RESULTS: The Palmer algorithm offers a systematic procedure for model selection, encouraging detailed analyses and ensuring that crucial stages in the selection process are not overlooked. In our study, a range of models were identified as potentially appropriate for extrapolating survival, but only flexible parametric non-mixture cure models provided extrapolations that were plausible and accurately predicted subsequently observed survival. The algorithm could be improved with minor additions around the specification of hazard plots and setting out plausibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The Palmer algorithm provides a systematic framework for identifying suitable survival models, and for defining plausibility criteria for extrapolation validity. Using the algorithm ensures that model selection is based on explicit justification and evidence, which could reduce discordance in health technology appraisals.