Author
Listed:
- Bart Heeg
(Cytel)
- Dawn Lee
(University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters)
- Jane Adam
(St George’S Hospital)
- Maarten Postma
(University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen
University of Groningen
Universitas Padjadjaran
Universitas Airlangga)
- Mario Ouwens
(Real World Science and Analytics, Astrazeneca Global)
Abstract
Background Numerous health technology assessment guidance documents emphasize the importance of biological/clinical plausibility of modeled lifetime incremental survival without clearly defining it. Objectives This paper defines biologically and clinically plausible lifetime survival extrapolations and proposes a framework to systematically assess this by comparing survival expectations estimated premodeling, with the final modeled survival extrapolations. This framework is embedded in a survival extrapolation protocol template, which ensures that both the expectations and extrapolations are based on unified, comprehensive evidence. Methods A targeted review was conducted of 29 guidance documents from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Haute Autorité de Santé, Canada’s Drug Agency, and European joint clinical assessment, focusing on survival analysis, evidence synthesis, cost-effectiveness modeling methods, and use of observational data. Results Survival extrapolations are biologically/clinically plausible when “predicted survival estimates that fall within the range considered plausible a-priori, obtained using a-priori justified methodology.” These a priori expectations should utilize the totality of evidence available and take into account local target setting (i.e., survival-influencing aspects such as patient population, treatment pathway, and country). Pre-protocolized biologically/clinically plausible survival extrapolation was operationalized in a five-step DICSA approach: (1) Describe the target setting as defined by all relevant treatment and disease aspects that influence survival; (2) collect Information from relevant sources; (3) Compare survival-influencing aspects across information sources; (4) Set pre-protocolized survival expectations and plausible ranges; and (5) Assess how trial-based extrapolations align with the set expectations by comparing modeled survival extrapolations to the range of values a priori considered to be plausible. Conclusion The definition of plausibility of survival extrapolations, the operationalization of its assessment, and the corresponding extrapolation protocol template can contribute to the transparent development of biologically/clinically plausible survival extrapolations.
Suggested Citation
Bart Heeg & Dawn Lee & Jane Adam & Maarten Postma & Mario Ouwens, 2025.
"Defining Biological and Clinical Plausibility: The DICSA Framework for Protocolized Assessment in Survival Extrapolations Across Therapeutic Areas,"
PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(7), pages 793-803, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01485-0
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01485-0
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01485-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.