Effect Modifiers In Indirect Treatment Comparisons; Steps To Ensure the Unbiased Identification to Inform Decision Making
One of the main reasons driving the development and use of population-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (PAIC) is the presence of some evidence for effect modification across the trials in the network and that, each of these EMs is distributed differently in the included study populations. Therefore, ensuring the unbiased identification of effect modifiers (EMs) for use in these comparisons is key to ensure the validity of analytical results. So far, much less emphasis has been placed on how these EMs are identified from the literature and selected for incorporation in these analyses.
Key learning points:
During this first webinar in the series our speakers will address the following questions, which will be answered based on the available methodologies and guidance from key organizations and Cytel research, but also takes into account recent methodological trends in decision-making:
- What is the current guidance from key organizations for the identification of EMs for use in PAICs?
- How often do researchers provide justification for the selection of EMs in their analyses?
- What are the key steps to confidently justify the unbiased identification of EMs for use in PAICs?
- Grammati Sarri, Senior Research Principal, Head of RWAA External Research Partnerships, Cytel
- Andreas Freitag, Associate Director, Research Principal, Health Economics
Grammati worked in private consultancies leading HEOR projects and providing strategic guidance on evidence synthesis and clinical effectiveness analyses for early product value demonstration and HTA submissions. Grammati has gained RWE expertise on leveraging this data for health care decision making through her ISPE leading role in producing guidance documents (such as developing a RWE framework for combining evidence from different sources (work recognized by NICE, EU HTx project), using electronic health records (for COVID-19) and ongoing collaborations with key stakeholders (Harvard Medical School, Utrecht University, NICE). Grammati has also a strong experience in understanding the payer perspective and requirements through her senior leadership role in the development of NICE Guidelines and closely working with clinicians, patient's and NICE executives.
Andreas has extensive experience in systematic reviewing and (network) meta-analysis, as well as synthesising evidence in support of HTA submissions, through multiple roles in HEOR consulting, payer settings, and academia. He previously held a senior researcher position at the National Guideline Centre (NGC), commissioned by NICE, to develop clinical, social care, and service delivery guidelines for the NHS in England and Wales. Prior to his role at the NGC, Andreas worked as a researcher at Queen Mary University of London where he conducted research on NHS policy, long-term care, and sports injury surveillance. Andreas has a medical degree from the Medical University of Vienna and an MSc in health systems and global policy from Queen Mary University of London.