IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i4p365-379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Additional Benefit Assessment Methods for Time-to-Event Endpoints Using Hazard Ratio Point Estimates or Confidence Interval Limits by Means of a Simulation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher A. Büsch

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

  • Marietta Kirchner

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

  • Rouven Behnisch

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

  • Meinhard Kieser

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

Abstract

Background For time-to-event endpoints, three additional benefit assessment methods have been developed aiming at an unbiased knowledge about the magnitude of clinical benefit of newly approved treatments. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) defines a continuous score using the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE). The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) developed methods with an ordinal outcome using lower and upper limits of the 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI), respectively. We describe all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming at a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, we determine which ASCO score is consistent with which ESMO/IQWiG category. Methods In a comprehensive simulation study with different failure time distributions and treatment effects, we compare all methods using Spearman’s correlation and descriptive measures. For determination of ASCO values consistent with categories of ESMO/IQWiG, maximizing weighted Cohen’s Kappa approach was used. Results Our research depicts a high positive relationship between ASCO/IQWiG and a low positive relationship between ASCO/ESMO. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 corresponds to ESMO categories. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents IQWiG categories. Limitations We investigated the statistical aspects of the methods and hence implemented slightly reduced versions of all methods. Conclusions IQWiG and ASCO are more conservative than ESMO, which often awards the maximal category independent of the true effect and is at risk of overcompensating with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and underpowered/overpowered studies influence all methods in some degree. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one. Highlights For the additional benefit assessment, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) uses the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE) for their continuous score. In contrast, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) use the lower and upper 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI) to specific thresholds, respectively. ESMO generously assigns maximal scores, while IQWiG is more conservative. This research provides the first comparison between IQWiG and ASCO and describes all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming for a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, thresholds for ASCO consistent with ESMO and IQWiG categories are determined, enabling a comparison of the methods in practice in a fair manner. IQWiG and ASCO are the more conservative methods, while ESMO awards high percentages of maximal categories, especially with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and under/-overpowered studies influence all methods. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 correspond to the categories of ESMO. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents categories of IQWiG.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher A. Büsch & Marietta Kirchner & Rouven Behnisch & Meinhard Kieser, 2024. "A Comparison of Additional Benefit Assessment Methods for Time-to-Event Endpoints Using Hazard Ratio Point Estimates or Confidence Interval Limits by Means of a Simulation Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 365-379, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:4:p:365-379
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241239928
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241239928
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241239928?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jackson, Christopher, 2016. "flexsurv: A Platform for Parametric Survival Modeling in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 70(i08).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elizabeth G Bond & Lusine Abrahamyan & Mohammad K A Khan & Andrea Gershon & Murray Krahn & Ping Li & Rajibul Mian & Nicholas Mitsakakis & Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Teresa To & Petros Pechlivanoglou & for t, 2020. "Understanding resource utilization and mortality in COPD to support policy making: A microsimulation study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Sharples, Linda D., 2018. "The role of statistics in the era of big data: Electronic health records for healthcare research," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 105-110.
    3. Suvra Pal & Hongbo Yu & Zachary D. Loucks & Ian M. Harris, 2020. "Illustration of the Flexibility of Generalized Gamma Distribution in Modeling Right Censored Survival Data: Analysis of Two Cancer Datasets," Annals of Data Science, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 77-90, March.
    4. Michael Crowther & Paul Lambert, 2016. "Multistate survival analysis in Stata," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2016 02, Stata Users Group.
    5. I. Oostrum & T. A. Russell-Smith & M. Jakobsson & J. Torup Østby & B. Heeg, 2022. "Cost-Effectiveness of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Compared to Standard of Care Chemotherapy for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Patients in Norway and Sweden," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 47-62, January.
    6. Caitlin Eichten & Qiufei Ma & Thomas E. Delea & May Hagiwara & Roberto Ramos & Şerban R. Iorga & Jie Zhang & Richard T. Maziarz, 2021. "Lifetime Costs for Treated Follicular Lymphoma Patients in the US," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(10), pages 1163-1183, October.
    7. Gabrielle Jongeneel & Marjolein J. E. Greuter & Felice N. Erning & Miriam Koopman & Jan P. Medema & Raju Kandimalla & Ajay Goel & Luis Bujanda & Gerrit A. Meijer & Remond J. A. Fijneman & Martijn G. H, 2020. "Modeling Personalized Adjuvant TreaTment in EaRly stage coloN cancer (PATTERN)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1059-1073, September.
    8. Linh Hoang Khanh Dang & Carlo Giovanni Camarda & France Meslé & Nadine Ouellette & Jean-Marie Robine & Jacques Vallin, 2023. "The question of the human mortality plateau: Contrasting insights by longevity pioneers," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 48(11), pages 321-338.
    9. María del Mar Rueda & Sergio Martínez-Puertas & Luis Castro-Martín, 2022. "Methods to Counter Self-Selection Bias in Estimations of the Distribution Function and Quantiles," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(24), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Raghul Gandhi Venkatesan & Bagavandas Mappillairaju, 2024. "Early student dropout detection in Indian secondary education with special reference to selected districts in Tamil Nadu: a machine learning-based survival analysis approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 2309-2331, December.
    11. Camarda, Carlo Giovanni, 2022. "The curse of the plateau. Measuring confidence in human mortality estimates at extreme ages," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 24-36.
    12. Jodi Gray & Thomas Sullivan & Nicholas R. Latimer & Amy Salter & Michael J. Sorich & Robyn L. Ward & Jonathan Karnon, 2021. "Extrapolation of Survival Curves Using Standard Parametric Models and Flexible Parametric Spline Models: Comparisons in Large Registry Cohorts with Advanced Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 179-193, February.
    13. Carmen María Yago & Francisco Javier Díez, 2023. "DESnets: A Graphical Representation for Discrete Event Simulation and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, March.
    14. Philip Cooney & Arthur White, 2023. "Direct Incorporation of Expert Opinion into Parametric Survival Models to Inform Survival Extrapolation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 325-336, April.
    15. Burger, Rulof & Ito, Seiro, 2016. "Labour market turnovers among South African youths," IDE Discussion Papers 603, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    16. Daniel Gallacher & Peter Kimani & Nigel Stallard, 2021. "Extrapolating Parametric Survival Models in Health Technology Assessment Using Model Averaging: A Simulation Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 476-484, May.
    17. Fuino, Michel & Wagner, Joël, 2020. "Duration of long-term care: Socio-economic factors, type of care interactions and evolution," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 151-168.
    18. Lauren Scott & Chris Rogers, 2016. "Creating summary tables using the sumtable command," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2016 05, Stata Users Group.
    19. Machado, Robson J.M. & van den Hout, Ardo & Marra, Giampiero, 2021. "Penalised maximum likelihood estimation in multi-state models for interval-censored data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    20. Francesco Grossetti & Francesca Ieva & Anna Maria Paganoni, 2018. "A multi-state approach to patients affected by chronic heart failure," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 281-291, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:4:p:365-379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.