A Comprehensive Comparison of Additional Benefit Assessment Methods Applied by Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and European Society for Medical Oncology for Time-to-Event Endpoints After Significant Phase III Trials-A Simulation Study.

additional benefit assessment clinical phase III trials oncology trials survival analysis

Journal

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
ISSN: 1524-4733
Titre abrégé: Value Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883818

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Jun 2022
Historique:
received: 18 10 2021
revised: 06 05 2022
accepted: 11 05 2022
entrez: 1 7 2022
pubmed: 2 7 2022
medline: 2 7 2022
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

After a successful Marketing Authorization Application for clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints, the degree of the added benefit from new treatments remains unknown and needs to be assessed. Unfortunately, until now no clear definition for added benefit determination of a treatment exists. Nevertheless, European authorities / societies have developed 2 "additional benefit assessment" methods, which have up to now not been compared: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed a dual rule considering relative and absolute benefit. The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) developed a method using upper 95% hazard ratio confidence interval. We evaluate and compare both methods in an extensive simulation study including different censoring rates, failure time distributions, and treatment effects for sample size calculation. The methods' performance is assessed via Receiver Operating Characteristic curves, Spearman correlation, and percentage of achieved maximal scores. The results show that IQWiG's method has in many situations a lower maximal scoring proportion than ESMO's rule, that is, up to 28.5% versus 94.7%. Various failure time distributions lead to strongly changed maximal scoring percentages for ESMO. High positive correlation between the methods is present for moderate treatment effects. IQWiG's method is usually more conservative than ESMO's. ESMO's rule tends to be more susceptible for various failure time distributions. Using the lower confidence interval limit seems to be a better solution resulting in a higher true-positive rate without increasing the false-positive rate. Thus, IQWiG's method might need to be adapted accordingly to achieve a better overall classification.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35778324
pii: S1098-3015(22)02003-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.05.015
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Christopher A Büsch (CA)

Institute of Medical Biometry (IMBI), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: buesch@imbi.uni-heidelberg.de.

Johannes Krisam (J)

Institute of Medical Biometry (IMBI), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.

Meinhard Kieser (M)

Institute of Medical Biometry (IMBI), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH