Les comparaisons indirectes Méthodes et validité - Indirect comparisons - Methods and Validity

Has

Description

Mis en ligne le 16 nov. 2010 Rapport de synthèse Dans le cadre de la mission d’évaluation des technologies de santé, la HAS doit préciser leur place dans la stratégie thérapeutique et le progrès potentiel qu’ils apportent. Cette évaluation requiert des comparaisons entre les technologies de santé chaque fois que la question de la hiérarchie d’efficacité ou de sécurité des traitements comparateurs se pose. A défaut de comparaisons directes, le recours à des comparaisons indirectes de qualité entre les différentes stratégies thérapeutiques doit être envisagé. La HAS a donc souhaité qu’une réflexion soit menée sur les méthodologies adaptées de comparaisons indirectes et leur validité scientifique. Cette réflexion se traduit par un rapport de synthèse qui présente le contexte dans lequel les techniques de comparaisons indirectes se sont développées, identifie les situations où les comparaisons indirectes ont un réel apport, présente les différentes techniques fiables de comparaisons indirectes, établit les points forts et les limites de chaque méthode, afin de mieux apprécier la validité des comparaisons indirectes. Le document propose une méthode d’évaluation et de lecture critique d’un travail de comparaison indirecte. Mis en ligne le 16 nov. 2010

Sujets

• Méthodologie

Informations

• Publié par: haute-autorite-sante-methodologie
• Publié le: 01 novembre 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 23
• Licence : En savoir +
  Paternité, pas d'utilisation commerciale, partage des conditions initiales à l'identique
• Langue: Français

Extrait

Indirect comparisons - Methods and validity














SUMMARY REPORT

Indirect comparisons
Methods and validity



July 2009



HAS - Department of Medecines Assessment 1/66 Indirect comparisons - Methods and validity










This executive summary can be downloaded from
www.has-sante.fr

Haute Autorité de Santé
Service communication
2 avenue du Stade de France - F 93218 Saint-Denis La Plaine CEDEX France
Tel. :[phone] -Fax:[phone]












© Haute Autorité de Santé - 2009
HAS - Department of Medecines Assessment 2/66
Contents
Summary 6
Definition ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
Context and potential benefits ............................................................................................................................ 6
Statistical methods ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Validity of indirect comparisons ............................................................................................... 7
Are direct comparison trials the gold standard?.................................................................................................. 7
Current use and acceptance by agencies .......................................................................................................... 7
Critical review ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Conclusions - Key points .................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................9
1.1 Definitions and general comments........... 9
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 10
2. Background ...............................................................................................................11
2.1 Lack of direct comparisons between active therapies ........................................................................... 11
2.2 Predilection for placebo-controlled trials................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Nontransitivity of statistical tests ........................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Non-inferiority clinical trials.................................................................................................................... 13
3. Literature review methods and selection criteria...................................................14
3.1 Information sources............................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Literature search strategy...................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Publication selection criteria................................................................................................. 15
4. Various methods used to carry out indirect comparisons....................................16
4.1 Inappropriate methods .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Adjusted indirect comparisons .............................................................................................................. 18
4.3 Mixed approach for direct and indirect comparisons ............................................................................. 22
4.4 Methods based on a global estimate from a network of trials................................................................ 24
4.5 Bayesian network meta-analysis.......... 27
4.6 Estimation using a mixed linear model.................................................................................................. 30
4.7 Meta-regression .................................................................................................................................... 33
4.8 Methods for continuous endpoints......................................................................................................... 35
4.9 Comparison of the different methods .................................................................................................... 35
5. Current use of indirect comparisons ......................................................................37
5.1 Bibliographical data............................................................................................................................... 37
5.2 Some recent publications ...................................................................................................................... 37
5.3 Use in health technology assessments and guidelines ......................................................................... 39
6. Validity of indirect comparisons..............................................................................40
6.1 How valid are indirect comparisons?......... 40
6.2 Validity studies ...................................................................................................................................... 40
6.3 Is direct comparison still the gold standard? ......................................................................................... 42
6.4 Outlook.................................................................................................................................................. 44
HAS - Department of Medecines Assessment 3/66
7. Position of regulatory bodies...................................................................................45
8. Interpretation of results ............................................................................................46
9. Critical review guide .................................................................................................47
9.1 Ideal situation ........................................................................................................................................ 47
9.2 Critical review guide .............................................................................................................................. 47
9.3 Case studies ......................................................................................................................................... 50
10. Conclusion.................................................................................................................55
11. Key points ..................................................................................................................56
Annex 1. List of participants ......................................................................................57
Annex 2. References ...................................................................................................58
Annex 3. Search for guidelines, health technology assessments and
methodological procedures on the Internet; list of websites
consulted......................................................................................................64
Index…………….…………………………………………………………………………………65

HAS - Department of Medecines Assessment 4/66
Abbreviations


MA Marketing authorisation
HAS Haute Autorité de Santé
FDA Federal Drug Administration
EMA European Medicines Agency
AFSSAPS Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé
NICE National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
HAS - Department of Medecines Assessment 5/66
Summary
Definition
Indirect comparison methods are used to measure the effect of treatment A compared with treatment
B based on the results of trials of A and of B versus the same control (placebo or active treatment). So
these methods provide extrapolations based on the hypothesis that the effects that A and B would
have (compared with a control in a head-to-head trial) are the same as those observed in trials used in
the indirect comparison.
Direct comparisons compare A and B directly in a head-to-head trial.
The results of direct comparisons can be combined with those of indirect comparisons by using a
mixed approach, known as a mixed treatment comparison (MTC).
Context and potential benefits
Indirect comparisons are being used more and more often because they make it possible to address
common issues in evaluation concerning the hierarchy of efficacy and/or safety of competing
treatments.
In many clinical fields, co