Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Road Not Taken: Transferability Issues in Multinational Trials

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

National regulatory agencies often have to use cost-effectiveness (CE) data from multinational randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for national decision making on reimbursement of new drugs. We need to make the best use of these patient-level data to obtain estimates of country-specific CE. Several methods, ranging from simple to statistically complex, have existed for years. We investigated which of these methods are used to estimate CE ratios in economic evaluations performed alongside recent, multinational RCTs that enrolled at least 500 patients.

Methods

In this systematic literature review, studies were classified based on whether resource use, unit costs, health outcomes and utility value sets were obtained from all countries, a subset of countries or one country. We recorded if the study presented trial-wide and country-specific CE results and reported the statistical analyses that were used to estimate them.

Results

We included 21 studies, of which the majority used measurements of health care utilization and health outcomes from all countries to estimate CE. Thirteen studies used a one-country valuation of health care utilization; six used a multi-country valuation. Despite the availability of country-specific utility value sets, none of the studies that presented quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) used multi-country valuation. Valuation of health care utilization and health outcomes was not always consistent within a study: three studies combined a multi-country valuation of health care utilization, with a one-country valuation of health outcomes. Most studies calculated trial-wide CE estimates, while 11 studies calculated country- or region-specific estimates. Thirteen studies used relatively simple methods, which do not take the possible interaction between the country and treatment effect on health care utilization and health outcomes into account. Eight studies used more advanced statistical methods. Three of them used a fixed-effects modeling approach. Five studies explicitly took the hierarchical structure of the data into account, which leads to more appropriate estimates of population average results and associated standard errors. In this way, they help improve transferability of the published results.

Conclusion

Based on this systematic review, we concluded that the uptake of more advanced statistical methods has been relatively slow, while simpler naïve methods are still routinely employed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Willan AR, Pinto EM, O’Brien BJ, Kaul P, Goeree R, Lynd L, et al. Country-specific cost comparisons from multinational clinical trials using empirical Bayesian shrinkage estimation: the Canadian ASSENT-3 economic analysis. Health Econ. 2005;14(4):327–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barbieri MA, Drummond MF, Willke R, Chancellor JVM, Jolain B, Towse A. Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: lessons for inferring generalizability. Value Health. 2005;8(1):10–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, Vemer P. Internationale vertaalbaarheid van kosten-effectiviteit [International transferability of cost-effectiveness]. Van Kosten tot Effecten Een handleiding voor evaluatiestudies in de gezondheidszorg [From Costs to Effects. A manual for evaluation studies in health care]. 2nd ed. Maarssen: ELSEVIER gezondheidszorg; 2010. p. 270.

  4. Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, Schulman K. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ. 1998;7(6):481–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Koopmanschap MA, Touw KC, Rutten FFH. Analysis of costs and cost-effectiveness in multinational trials. Health Policy. 2001;58(2):175–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke PM, Glasziou P, Patel A, Chalmers J, Woodward M, Harrap SB, et al. Event rates, hospital utilization, and costs associated with major complications of diabetes: a multicountry comparative analysis. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rice N, Jones A. Multilevel models and health economics. Health Econ. 1997;6(6):561–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carey K. A multilevel modelling approach to analysis of patient costs under managed care. Health Econ. 2000;9(5):435–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nixon RM, Thompson SG. Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. Health Econ. 2005;14(12):1217–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grieve R, Nixon R, Thompson SG, Normand C. Using multilevel models for assessing the variability of multinational resource use and cost data. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):185–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Manca A, Rice N, Sculpher MJ, Briggs AH. Assessing generalisability by location in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models. Health Econ. 2005;14(5):471–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pinto EM, Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis for multinational clinical trials. Stat Med. 2005;24(13):1965–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gauthier A, Manca A, Anton S. Bayesian modelling of healthcare resource use in multinational randomized clinical trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(12):1017–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Goeree R. The analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data for reimbursement decisions: a critical appraisal of recent methodological developments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(12):1079–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, Glick H, Lis J, Malik F, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lindgren P, Buxton M, Kahan T, Poulter NR, Dahlof B, Sever PS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin for the prevention of coronary and stroke events: an economic analysis of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–lipid-lowering arm (ASCOT-LLA). Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2005;12(1):29–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Löfdahl CG, Ericsson A, Svensson K, Andreasson E. Cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for COPD compared with each monocomponent used alone. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(4):365–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peeters P, Ortonne JP, Sitbon R, Guignard E. Cost-effectiveness of once-daily treatment with calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate followed by calcipotriol alone compared with tacalcitol in the treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris. Dermatology. 2005;211(2):139–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Radeva JI, Reed SD, Kalo Z, Kauf TL, Cantu E 3rd, Cretin N, et al. Economic evaluation of everolimus vs. azathioprine at one year after de novo heart transplantation. Clin Transpl. 2005;19(1):122–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reed SD, Radeva JI, Weinfurt KP, McMurray JJ, Pfeffer MA, Velazquez EJ, et al. Resource use, costs, and quality of life among patients in the multinational Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT). Am Heart J. 2005;150(2):323–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weintraub WS, Mahoney EM, Lamy A, Culler S, Yuan Y, Caro J, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel given for up to one year in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(6):838–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Weintraub WS, Zhang Z, Mahoney EM, Kolm P, Spertus JA, Caro J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of eplerenone compared with placebo in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure. Circulation. 2005;111(9):1106–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Briggs AH, Bousquet J, Wallace MV, Busse WW, Clark TJ, Pedersen SE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of asthma control: an economic appraisal of the GOAL study. Allergy. 2006;61(5):531–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tonkin AM, Eckermann S, White H, Friedlander D, Glasziou P, Magnus P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with previous acute coronary syndromes aged 65 to 74 years compared with younger patients: results from the LIPID study. Am Heart J. 2006;151(6):1305–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Willan AR, Goeree R, Pullenayegum EM, McBurney C, Blackhouse G. Economic evaluation of rivastigmine in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(1):93–106.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bachert C, Vestenbaek U, Christensen J, Griffiths UK, Poulsen PB. Cost-effectiveness of grass allergen tablet (GRAZAX) for the prevention of seasonal grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis: a Northern European perspective. Clin Exp Allergy. 2007;37(5):772–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Canonica GW, Poulsen PB, Vestenbaek U. Cost-effectiveness of GRAZAX for prevention of grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis in Southern Europe. Respir Med. 2007;101(9):1885–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Manca A, Lambert PC, Sculpher M, Rice N. Cost-effectiveness analysis using data from multinational trials: the use of bivariate hierarchical modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(4):471–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, van Nooten FE, Lindemann M, Caeser M, Calverley PM. A 1-year prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of roflumilast for the treatment of patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(8):695–711.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Willan AR, Kowgier ME. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multinational RCT with a binary measure of effectiveness and an interacting covariate. Health Econ. 2008;17(7):777–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Marcoff L, Zhang Z, Zhang W, Ewen E, Jurkovitz C, Leguet P, et al. Cost effectiveness of enoxaparin in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 (Enoxaparin and Thrombolysis Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 25) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(14):1271–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Briggs AH, Glick HA, Lozano-Ortega G, Spencer M, Calverley PM, Jones PW, et al. Is treatment with ICS and LABA cost-effective for COPD? Multinational economic analysis of the TORCH study. Eur Respir J. 2010;35(3):532–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gomes M, Soares MO, Dumville JC, Lewis SC, Torgerson DJ, Bodenham AR, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA Trial). Br J Surg. 2010;97(8):1218–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lorgelly PK, Briggs AH, Wedel H, Dunselman P, Hjalmarson A, Kjekshus J, et al. An economic evaluation of rosuvastatin treatment in systolic heart failure: evidence from the CORONA trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12(1):66–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rogkakou A, Villa E, Garelli V, Canonica GW. Persistent allergic rhinitis and the XPERT study. World Allergy Organ J. 2011;4(Suppl. 3):S32–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for the EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Drummond M, Sulpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Briggs A, Scuplher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cook JR, Drummond MF, Glick H, Heyse JF. Assessing the appropriateness of combining economic data from multinational clinical trials. Stat Med. 2003;22(12):1955–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. O’Hagan A, Stevens JW, Montmartin J. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis from clinical trial data. Stat Med. 2001;20(5):733–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Drummond MF, Bloom BS, Carrin G, Hillman AL, Hutchings AC, Knill-Jones RP, et al. Issues in the cross-national assessment of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992;8(4):671–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Drummond MF, Pang F. Transferability of economic evaluation results. In: Drummond MF, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care; merging theory with practice. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pang F. Design, analysis and presentation of multinational economic studies: the need for guidance. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(2):75–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Reed SD, Anstrom KJ, Bakhai A, Briggs AH, Califf RM, Cohen DJ, et al. Conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials: toward a research consensus. Am Heart J. 2005;149(3):434–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. ISPOR. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines from around the world. 2013. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp. Accessed March 2013.

  48. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):7–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach J, Graf von der Schulenburg J. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2004. [Epub ahead of print].

  51. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, Severens JL, Ament AJ. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):767–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Glick H, Doshi J, Sonnad S, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Gail M, Simon R. Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. Biometrics. 1985;41(2):361–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Piantadosi S, Gail MH. A comparison of the power of two tests for qualitative interactions. Stat Med. 1993;12(13):1239–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Pan G, Wolfe DA. Test for qualitative interaction of clinical significance. Stat Med. 1997;16(14):1645–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31(5):361–7. doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0032-y.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the useful comments made by three anonymous reviewers. The first author performed the review, collected the data and wrote the manuscript. The final author contributed to writing, reviewing and approving the manuscript. Both authors contributed to analyzing and interpreting the outcomes of the study.

Declaration of interests

Pepijm Vemer and Maureen Rutten-van Mölken have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Pepijn Vemer & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken

Authors
  1. Pepijn Vemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pepijn Vemer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vemer, P., Rutten-van Mölken, M.P.M.H. The Road Not Taken: Transferability Issues in Multinational Trials. PharmacoEconomics 31, 863–876 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0084-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0084-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation