OP236 Evidence Synthesis Of Time-To-Event Outcomes In The Presence Of Non-Proportional Hazards. (December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Freeman, Suzanne; Cooper, Nicola; Sutton, Alex; Crowther, Michael; Carpenter, James; Hawkins, Neil
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 37(2021)Supplement 1
• Page Start: 8
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2021-12
• Subjects: Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462321000830
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Synthesis of clinical effectiveness is a well-established component of health technology assessment (HTA) combining data from multiple trials to obtain an overall pooled estimate of clinical effectiveness, which may inform an associated economic evaluation. Time-to-event outcomes are often synthesized using effect measures from Cox proportional hazards models assuming a constant hazard ratio over time. However, where treatment effects vary over time an assumption of proportional hazards is not always valid. Several methods have been proposed for synthesizing time-to-event outcomes in the presence of non-proportional hazards. However, guidance on choosing between these methods and the implications for HTA is lacking. Methods: We applied five methods for estimating treatment effects from time-to-event outcomes, which relax the proportional hazards assumption to a network of melanoma trials, reporting overall survival: restricted mean survival time, an accelerated failure time generalized gamma model, piecewise exponential, fractional polynomial and Royston-Parmar models. We conducted a simulation study to compare these five methods. Simulated individual patient data was generated from a mixture Weibull distribution assuming a treatment-time interaction. Each simulated meta-analysis consisted of five trials with varying numbers of patients and length of follow-up across trials. For each model fitted to each dataset, we calculated the restricted mean survival time at the end of observed follow-up and following extrapolation to a 20-year time horizon. Results: All models fitted the melanoma data reasonably well with some variation in the treatment rankings and differences in the survival curves. The simulation study demonstrated the potential for different conclusions from different modelling approaches. Conclusions: The restricted mean survival time, generalized gamma, piecewise exponential, fractional polynomial and Royston-Parmar models can all accommodate non-proportional hazards and differing lengths of trial follow-up within an evidence synthesis of time-to-event outcomes. Further work is needed in this area to extend the simulation study to the network meta-analysis setting and provide guidance on the key considerations for informing model choice for the purposes of HTA.