A Comparison of Relative-Efficacy Estimate(S) Derived From Both Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons and Standard Anchored Indirect Treatment Comparisons: A Review of Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons

Nov 1, 2023, 00:00 AM
10.1016/j.jval.2023.07.001
https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015(23)03061-9/fulltext
Section Title : SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Section Order : 1665
First Page : 1665

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.

https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/action/showCitFormats?pii=S1098-3015(23)03061-9&doi=10.1016/j.jval.2023.07.001
HEOR Topics :
  • Meta-Analysis & Indirect Comparisons
  • Methodological & Statistical Research
  • Modeling and simulation
  • Study Approaches
Tags :
  • indirect treatment comparisons
  • matching-adjusted indirect comparison
  • network meta analysis
  • population adjusted indirect comparisons
  • relative efficacy
  • treatment efficacy
Regions :
  • Global