This was true for every transferability factor, since the INMB of the base case comparison is close to zero with a λ close to the ICER.
Statistical evaluations for the sensitivity analyses were conducted in a manner similar to that described for the base case comparison.
Using MAIC in the base case comparison, significantly greater reductions in mean (standard error; SE) ADHD-RS-IV total scores from baseline to end of study were observed in patients treated with GXR relative to ATX [−7.0 (2.2); p < 0.01].
In the worst base case comparison for RCHOP-R, which was RCHOP-R versus RCHOP, an ICER of €18 147 per QALY gained was established.
For the purposes of a primary base case comparison of GXR and ATX, target doses used for comparison were selected on the basis of the maximum recommended effective dosages from their respective FDA-approved labels [ 4, 5].
The reason is that the INMB of the base case comparison is always positive with a λ above the value of the ICER, but negative with a λ below the ICER.
The base case comparison was between rosuvastatin 20 mg and generic simvastatin 40 mg or generic atorvastatin 40 mg over a patient's lifetime for persons in Sweden with a Framingham risk ≥20% or ≥30%.
From the two GXR studies used in the base case comparison, different cohorts of patients receiving GXR at lower doses than the target dose (0.075 0.090 and 0.046 0.075 mg/kg/day) were selected and were compared with the same base case target dose of ATX (1.2 mg/kg/day) in the three-trial sensitivity analysis [ 12, 13, 15].
At ≥20% risk, the effect of no future introduction of generic rosuvastatin was similar to that of restricting the time horizon to 20 years, whereas an increase in relative risk of a primary event (use of JUPITER relative risk of 0.56) was associated with slight reductions in ICERs relative to the base case comparisons (Table 4).
The trend is opposite for drift ratio, i.e., drift ratio is higher for nonlinear base case in comparison to the linear base case.
