Selection of indirect treatment comparisons for health technology assessments: a practical guide for health economics and outcomes research scientists and clinicians.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jennifer D Guo, Adel Gehchan, Abraham Hartzema
{"title":"Selection of indirect treatment comparisons for health technology assessments: a practical guide for health economics and outcomes research scientists and clinicians.","authors":"Jennifer D Guo, Adel Gehchan, Abraham Hartzema","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies evaluate the clinical and economic values of health interventions to inform healthcare decision-making. They face the challenge of lacking head-to-head randomised clinical trial data against the standard of care. Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods are often used and accepted by HTA bodies worldwide, but there are numerous options with various and inconsistent terminologies. The selection and application of ITC methods are complex from methodological and clinical perspectives.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This article (1) provides a comprehensive overview of ITC methods by clarifying used terminologies, including fundamental assumptions, frameworks, strengths, limitations, applications and specific considerations; (2) examines recent ITC guidelines with recommendations or preferences from major HTA bodies and (3) guides health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) scientists and clinicians in the strategic selection of ITC methods with case examples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a rapid review to identify the literature related to ITC methods and ITC-relevant HTA guidelines in various databases between 2009 and April 2024.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comprehensive knowledge of the ITC methods landscape and the evolving ITC-relevant HTA guidelines are essential for ITC methods selection. Effective communication/collaboration between HEOR scientists and clinicians ensures that the selection and justification of ITC methods are robust for HTA submissions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 3","pages":"e091961"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11938225/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091961","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies evaluate the clinical and economic values of health interventions to inform healthcare decision-making. They face the challenge of lacking head-to-head randomised clinical trial data against the standard of care. Indirect treatment comparison (ITC) methods are often used and accepted by HTA bodies worldwide, but there are numerous options with various and inconsistent terminologies. The selection and application of ITC methods are complex from methodological and clinical perspectives.

Objectives: This article (1) provides a comprehensive overview of ITC methods by clarifying used terminologies, including fundamental assumptions, frameworks, strengths, limitations, applications and specific considerations; (2) examines recent ITC guidelines with recommendations or preferences from major HTA bodies and (3) guides health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) scientists and clinicians in the strategic selection of ITC methods with case examples.

Methods: The authors conducted a rapid review to identify the literature related to ITC methods and ITC-relevant HTA guidelines in various databases between 2009 and April 2024.

Conclusions: Comprehensive knowledge of the ITC methods landscape and the evolving ITC-relevant HTA guidelines are essential for ITC methods selection. Effective communication/collaboration between HEOR scientists and clinicians ensures that the selection and justification of ITC methods are robust for HTA submissions.

背景:卫生技术评估(HTA)机构评估医疗干预措施的临床和经济价值,为医疗保健决策提供依据。他们面临的挑战是缺乏与标准医疗方法进行正面随机临床试验的数据。间接治疗比较(ITC)方法经常被世界各地的 HTA 机构所使用和接受,但其选择众多,术语各异且不一致。从方法学和临床角度来看,ITC方法的选择和应用都很复杂:本文(1)通过澄清所用术语,包括基本假设、框架、优势、局限性、应用和具体注意事项,全面概述了ITC方法;(2)研究了近期ITC指南,以及主要HTA机构的建议或偏好;(3)通过案例指导卫生经济学和结果研究(HEOR)科学家和临床医生战略性地选择ITC方法:作者对2009年至2024年4月期间各种数据库中与ITC方法和ITC相关的HTA指南有关的文献进行了快速回顾:全面了解ITC方法和不断发展的ITC相关HTA指南对于ITC方法的选择至关重要。HEOR 科学家和临床医生之间的有效沟通/合作可确保在提交 HTA 报告时,ITC 方法的选择和论证是可靠的。
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
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
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