Abstract

Objectives

We present an empirical comparison of relative-efficacy estimate(s) from matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) with estimates from corresponding standard anchored indirect treatment comparisons.

Methods

A total of 80 comparisons were identified from 17 publications through a systematic rapid review. A standardized metric that used reported relative treatment efficacy estimates and their associated uncertainty was used to compare the methods across different treatment indications and outcome measures.

Results

On aggregate, MAICs presented for connected networks tended to report a more favorable relative-efficacy estimate for the treatment for which individual-level patient data were available relative to the reported indirect treatment comparison estimate.

Conclusions

Although we recognize the importance of MAIC and other population adjustment methods in certain situations, we recommend that results from these analyses are interpreted with caution. Researchers and analysts should carefully consider if MAICs are appropriate where presented and whether MAICs would have added value where omitted.