Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Janharpreet Singh, Sumayya Anwer, Stephen Palmer, Pedro Saramago, Anne Thomas, Sofia Dias, Marta O Soares, Sylwia Bujkiewicz
{"title":"Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab.","authors":"Janharpreet Singh, Sumayya Anwer, Stephen Palmer, Pedro Saramago, Anne Thomas, Sofia Dias, Marta O Soares, Sylwia Bujkiewicz","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241295665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multi-indication cancer drugs receive licensing extensions to include additional indications, as trial evidence on treatment effectiveness accumulates. We investigate how sharing information across indications can strengthen the inferences supporting health technology assessment (HTA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied meta-analytic methods to randomized trial data on bevacizumab, to share information across oncology indications on the treatment effect on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) and on the surrogate relationship between effects on PFS and OS. Common or random indication-level parameters were used to facilitate information sharing, and the further flexibility of mixture models was also explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Treatment effects on OS lacked precision when pooling data available at present day within each indication separately, particularly for indications with few trials. There was no suggestion of heterogeneity across indications. Sharing information across indications provided more precise estimates of treatment effects and surrogacy parameters, with the strength of sharing depending on the model. When a surrogate relationship was used to predict treatment effects on OS, uncertainty was reduced only when sharing effects on PFS in addition to surrogacy parameters. Corresponding analyses using the earlier, sparser (within and across indications) evidence available for particular HTAs showed that sharing on both surrogacy and PFS effects did not notably reduce uncertainty in OS predictions. Little heterogeneity across indications meant limited added value of the mixture models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Meta-analysis methods can be usefully applied to share information on treatment effectiveness across indications in an HTA context, to increase the precision of target indication estimates. Sharing on surrogate relationships requires caution, as meaningful precision gains in predictions will likely require a substantial evidence base and clear support for surrogacy from other indications.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>We investigated how sharing information across indications can strengthen inferences on the effectiveness of multi-indication treatments in the context of health technology assessment (HTA).Multi-indication meta-analysis methods can provide more precise estimates of an effect on a final outcome or of the parameters describing the relationship between effects on a surrogate endpoint and a final outcome.Precision of the predicted effect on the final outcome based on an effect on the surrogate endpoint will depend on the precision of the effect on the surrogate endpoint and the strength of evidence of a surrogate relationship across indications.Multi-indication meta-analysis methods can be usefully applied to predict an effect on the final outcome, particularly where there is limited evidence in the indication of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X241295665"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241295665","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Multi-indication cancer drugs receive licensing extensions to include additional indications, as trial evidence on treatment effectiveness accumulates. We investigate how sharing information across indications can strengthen the inferences supporting health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods: We applied meta-analytic methods to randomized trial data on bevacizumab, to share information across oncology indications on the treatment effect on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) and on the surrogate relationship between effects on PFS and OS. Common or random indication-level parameters were used to facilitate information sharing, and the further flexibility of mixture models was also explored.

Results: Treatment effects on OS lacked precision when pooling data available at present day within each indication separately, particularly for indications with few trials. There was no suggestion of heterogeneity across indications. Sharing information across indications provided more precise estimates of treatment effects and surrogacy parameters, with the strength of sharing depending on the model. When a surrogate relationship was used to predict treatment effects on OS, uncertainty was reduced only when sharing effects on PFS in addition to surrogacy parameters. Corresponding analyses using the earlier, sparser (within and across indications) evidence available for particular HTAs showed that sharing on both surrogacy and PFS effects did not notably reduce uncertainty in OS predictions. Little heterogeneity across indications meant limited added value of the mixture models.

Conclusions: Meta-analysis methods can be usefully applied to share information on treatment effectiveness across indications in an HTA context, to increase the precision of target indication estimates. Sharing on surrogate relationships requires caution, as meaningful precision gains in predictions will likely require a substantial evidence base and clear support for surrogacy from other indications.

Highlights: We investigated how sharing information across indications can strengthen inferences on the effectiveness of multi-indication treatments in the context of health technology assessment (HTA).Multi-indication meta-analysis methods can provide more precise estimates of an effect on a final outcome or of the parameters describing the relationship between effects on a surrogate endpoint and a final outcome.Precision of the predicted effect on the final outcome based on an effect on the surrogate endpoint will depend on the precision of the effect on the surrogate endpoint and the strength of evidence of a surrogate relationship across indications.Multi-indication meta-analysis methods can be usefully applied to predict an effect on the final outcome, particularly where there is limited evidence in the indication of interest.

肿瘤健康技术评估中的多适应症证据综合:Meta 分析方法及其在贝伐珠单抗案例研究中的应用。
背景:随着有关治疗效果的试验证据不断积累,多适应症抗癌药物的许可被延长以包括更多适应症。我们研究了跨适应症信息共享如何加强支持健康技术评估(HTA)的推论:我们对贝伐珠单抗的随机试验数据采用了荟萃分析方法,以共享各肿瘤适应症对总生存期(OS)或无进展生存期(PFS)的治疗效果信息,以及对PFS和OS的效果之间的替代关系信息。为了促进信息共享,我们使用了通用或随机的适应症参数,并进一步探讨了混合模型的灵活性:结果:将目前可获得的数据分别汇集到每个适应症中时,治疗对OS的影响缺乏精确性,特别是对于试验较少的适应症。没有迹象表明不同适应症之间存在异质性。共享各适应症的信息可提供更精确的治疗效果估计值和代用参数,共享的力度取决于模型。当使用代用关系预测对OS的治疗效果时,只有在共享PFS效果和代用参数时,不确定性才会降低。使用特定 HTAs 中较早期、较稀少(适应症内和适应症间)的证据进行的相应分析表明,共享代偿和 PFS 效应并不能显著降低 OS 预测的不确定性。不同适应症之间的异质性很小,这意味着混合模型的附加价值有限:结论:在 HTA 的背景下,元分析方法可以有效地用于共享不同适应症的治疗效果信息,从而提高目标适应症估计值的精确度。共享代用关系需要慎重,因为有意义地提高预测精度可能需要大量证据基础以及其他适应症对代用关系的明确支持:我们研究了在卫生技术评估(HTA)的背景下,跨适应症信息共享如何加强对多适应症治疗效果的推断。多适应症荟萃分析方法可以提供更精确的最终结果效果估计值,或描述代用终点效果与最终结果之间关系的参数的估计值。基于对替代终点的影响而预测的最终结果效应的精确度将取决于对替代终点的影响的精确度以及不同适应症之间替代关系的证据强度。多指标荟萃分析方法可用于预测对最终结果的影响,尤其是在相关适应症证据有限的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信