Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 6/2015

01-06-2015 | Leading Article

Simulation and Matching-Based Approaches for Indirect Comparison of Treatments

Authors: K. Jack Ishak, Irina Proskorovsky, Agnes Benedict

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Estimates of the relative effects of competing treatments are rarely available from head-to-head trials. These effects must therefore be derived from indirect comparisons of results from different studies. The feasibility of comparisons relies on the network linking treatments through common comparators; the reliability of these may also be impacted when the studies are heterogeneous or when multiple intermediate comparisons are needed to link two specific treatments of interest. Simulated treatment comparison and matching-adjusted indirect comparison have been developed to address these challenges. These focus on comparisons of outcomes for two specific treatments of interest by using patient-level data for one treatment (the index) and published results for the other treatment (the comparator) from compatible studies, taking into account possible confounding due to population differences. This paper provides an overview of how and when these approaches can be used as an alternative or to complement standard MTC approaches.
Footnotes
1
We use the Y(X) notation loosely here to indicate that the response or outcome variable is some function of predictors. We do not intend to imply any specific form or relationship. These are made explicit where needed in the text.
 
2
Parameterization used in statistical software can vary. The formula provided here is based on the general form of the Weibull distribution. Analysts should verify the formulation used in the software used to perform the analyses to ensure correct calculation of the HR.
 
Literature
1.
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897–900.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
3.
4.
5.
Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101(474):447–59.CrossRef
9.
Alemayehu D. Assessing exchangeability in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. Comp Eff Res (Auckl). 2011;1:51–5.
10.
11.
Nixon RM, Bansback N, Brennan A. Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Stat Med. 2007;26(6):1237–54.CrossRefPubMed
12.
van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21(4):589–624.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Caro JJ, Ishak KJ. No head-to-head trial? Simulate the missing arms. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):957–67.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, Xie J, Lu M, Hodgkins PS, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935–45.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;326(7387):472.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
17.
Blinder A. Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. J Hum Resour. 1973;8(4):436–55.CrossRef
18.
Fairlie RW. An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition technique to logit and probit models. IZA discussion paper no. 1917. J Econ Soc Meas. 2005;30(4):305–16. Available at: http://​ftp.​iza.​org/​dp1917.​pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2015.
19.
Oaxaca R. Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int Econ Rev. 1973;14(3):693–709.CrossRef
20.
Oaxaca R, Ransom M. On discrimination and the decomposition of wage differentials. J Econom. 1994;61(1):5–21.CrossRef
21.
Ishak KJ, Kreif N, Benedict A, Muszbek N. Overview of parametric survival analysis for health-economic applications. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):663–75.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
23.
Hoyle MW, Henley W. Improved curve fits to summary survival data: application to economic evaluation of health technologies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:139.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Metadata
Title
Simulation and Matching-Based Approaches for Indirect Comparison of Treatments
Authors
K. Jack Ishak
Irina Proskorovsky
Agnes Benedict
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0271-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

PharmacoEconomics 6/2015 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Review with Follow-Up Service for Older Adults with Polypharmacy in Community Pharmacies in Spain: The conSIGUE Program

Review Article

Welfarism Versus Extra-Welfarism: Can the Choice of Economic Evaluation Approach Impact on the Adoption Decisions Recommended by Economic Evaluation Studies?

Erratum

Erratum to: Cost Effectiveness of Oromucosal Cannabis-Based Medicine (Sativex®) for Spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis

Systematic Review

Cost Effectiveness of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors for Type 2 Diabetes

Practical Application

A Practical Guide for Using Registry Data to Inform Decisions About the Cost Effectiveness of New Cancer Drugs: Lessons Learned from the PHAROS Registry

Review Article

Pharmacological Management of Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Review of Cost Effectiveness