Supplementary data: Perceptions of indirect treatment comparisons as an evidence base in oncology decision-making: results of an international survey of health technology assessment and payer decision-makers

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Perceptions of indirect treatment comparisons as an evidence base in oncology decision-making: results of an international survey of health technology assessment and payer decision-makers' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

• Supplementary Table 1: Question theme and types of questions
• Questionnaire: Payer perceptions and use of ITC in HTA/P&R decision-making

Aim: Health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations are often faced with early decision making in oncology. To design and conduct robust indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), it is important to better understand HTA and payer decision-maker perceptions of ITCs. Here we aim to describe what individuals with HTA and payer experience see as the acceptability of ITCs for HTA and payer organization coverage and reimbursement decision-making. Materials & methods: This survey included 30 current and former HTA and payer decision-makers from five countries: Australia, France, Germany, the UK (n = 5 each) and the US (n = 10). Main outcomes included the ratings of acceptance of ITCs and the presence of welldefined methodological guidance for ITCs. Results: ITCs are generally accepted by participants in Australia and the UK but are more likely evaluated on a case-by-case basis in France, Germany and the US. Four of five participants in Germany and the UK, two of five in Australia and one of five in France reported that well-defined and prescribed criteria regarding the use of ITCs were in place. Conclusion: There is a need for harmonization of methods used to assess ITCs by HTA and payers, especially in the rapidly evolving treatment landscape in oncology.