Consistently estimating risk difference in a jurisdiction of interest: Odds solution to relative risk fallacies

Eckermann, S., Coory, M. and Willan, A. R. (2008). Consistently estimating risk difference in a jurisdiction of interest: Odds solution to relative risk fallacies. In: Value in Health. Proceedings of: ISPOR Eleventh Annual European Congress Research Abstracts. ISPOR 11th Annual European Congress, Athens, Greece, (A577-A578). November 8-11 2008. doi:10.1016/S1098-3015(10)66897-0


Author Eckermann, S.
Coory, M.
Willan, A. R.
Title of paper Consistently estimating risk difference in a jurisdiction of interest: Odds solution to relative risk fallacies
Conference name ISPOR 11th Annual European Congress
Conference location Athens, Greece
Conference dates November 8-11 2008
Proceedings title Value in Health. Proceedings of: ISPOR Eleventh Annual European Congress Research Abstracts   Check publisher's open access policy
Journal name Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research   Check publisher's open access policy
Place of Publication Malden, MA, U. S. A.
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Publication Year 2008
Sub-type Poster
DOI 10.1016/S1098-3015(10)66897-0
Open Access Status DOI
ISSN 1098-3015
1524-4733
Volume 11
Issue 6
Start page A577
End page A578
Total pages 2
Language eng
Formatted Abstract/Summary
OBJECTIVES:
Economic analyses in health technology assessment often require estimation of absolute risk difference (ARD) for outcomes such as survival or progression, given base risk in the jurisdiction of interest and trial evidence of treatment effects. We demonstrate that odds ratios (OR) provide distinct advantages over relative risk (RR) in consistently estimating such ARD independent of the framing of effects (e.g. mortality or survival) for direct and indirect comparisons.

METHODS:
Use of RR is shown to lead to inferential anomalies in estimating ARD, while consistently estimated using OR. These inferential anomalies and odds solution are illustrated for indirect comparison of Natiluzimab versus Interferon beta-1b for multiple sclerosis, as well as direct comparisons.

RESULTS:
Standard use of relative risk to calculate ARD in indirect comparison suggests Natiluzimab is more effective than Interferon for progression (RR = 0.70, ARD = 21% for a base risk of 70% progression) but less effective than Interferon for no progression (RR = 0.84, ARD = 4.8%). This inferential anomaly is avoided using OR, with odds of progression (0.83) the reciprocal of that for no progression (1.21), and ARD of 4.1% in favor of Nataluzimab with progression or no progression. For direct comparisons ARD is shown to be consistently estimated with OR but change with framing of effects using RR wherever epidemiological risk differs from trial risk in the comparator arm.

CONCLUSIONS:
Odds ratios allow consistent estimation of absolute risk differences regardless of framing of effects in direct and indirect comparisons. This overcomes inferential anomalies that arise with use of relative risk in such comparisons whenever base risk differs in the jurisdiction of interest from that in trials, or base risk in the common arms differs in indirect comparisons. Consequently, odds ratios avoid selection biases in framing of effects inherent with risk ratios and are suggested as the preferred metric in estimating such risk differences.
© 2008, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)
Subjects E1
920499 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health) not elsewhere classified
140208 Health Economics
1117 Public Health and Health Services
Q-Index Code EX
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Additional Notes Published under "Poster Session III: Conceptual Papers & Research On Methods—Clinical Outcomes Methods". Poster number PMC60

Document type: Conference Paper
Sub-type: Poster
Collections: 2009 Higher Education Research Data Collection
School of Public Health Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Apr 2009, 22:40:41 EST by Geraldine Fitzgerald on behalf of Faculty Of Health Sciences