IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i6p726-739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relative Survival Modeling for Appraising the Cost-Effectiveness of Life-Extending Treatments: An Application to Tafamidis for the Treatment of Transthyretin Amyloidosis with Cardiomyopathy

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Young

    (Health Economics and Outcomes Research Ltd, Cardiff, UK)

  • Jack Said

    (Pfizer Ltd, Tadworth, UK)

  • Sam Large

    (Pfizer Ltd, Tadworth, UK)

Abstract

Background Economic evaluations for life-extending treatments frequently require clinical trial data to be extrapolated beyond the trial duration to estimate changes in life expectancy. Conventional survival models often display hazard profiles that do not rise as expected in an aging population and require the incorporation of external data to ensure plausibility. Relative survival (RS) models can enable the incorporation of external data at model fitting. A comparison was performed between RS and “standard†all-cause survival (ACS) in modeling outcomes from the tafamidis for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-ACT) trial. Methods Patient-level data from the 30-mo ATTR-ACT trial were used to develop survival models based on parametric ACS and RS models. The latter was composed of an expected hazard and an independent excess hazard. Models were selected according to statistical goodness of fit and clinical plausibility, with extrapolation up to 72 mo validated against ATTR-ACT long-term extension (LTE) data. Results Information criteria were too similar to discriminate between RS or ACS models. Several ACS models were affected by capping with general population mortality rates and considered implausible. Selected RS models matched the empirical hazard function, could not fall below general population hazards, and predicted well compared with the LTE data. The preferred RS model predicted the restricted mean survival (RMST) to 72 mo of 51.0 mo (95% confidence interval [CI]: 46.1, 55.3); this compared favorably to the LTE RMST of 50.9 mo (95% CI: 47.7, 53.9). Discussion RS models can improve the accuracy for modeling populations with high background mortality rates (e.g., the ATTR-CM trial). RS modeling enforces a plausible long-term hazard profile, enables flexibility in medium-term hazard profiles, and increases the robustness of medical decision making. Highlights To inform survival extrapolations for health technology assessment, a relative survival model incorporating external data per the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit was used in support of the NICE evaluation of tafamidis for treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM). Relative survival modeling allowed selection of a broader range of hazard profiles compared with all-cause survival modeling by ensuring plausible long-term predictions. Predictions from plausible relative survival models of overall survival in patients with ATTR-CM, extrapolated from the ATTR-ACT trial, validated very well to outcomes after a doubling of follow-up and demonstrated improved precision and accuracy versus parametric all-cause survival models.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Young & Jack Said & Sam Large, 2025. "Relative Survival Modeling for Appraising the Cost-Effectiveness of Life-Extending Treatments: An Application to Tafamidis for the Treatment of Transthyretin Amyloidosis with Cardiomyopathy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(6), pages 726-739, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:6:p:726-739
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251342459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251342459
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251342459?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:45:y:2025:i:6:p:726-739. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.