Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simulation and Matching-Based Approaches for Indirect Comparison of Treatments

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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.

References

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331(7521):897–900.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Decision Support Unit (DSU), Sheffield. 2011. Last updated April 2014. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD2%20General%20meta%20analysis%20corrected%2015April2014.pdf. Accessed 2 Sep 2014.

  4. Hasselblad V. Meta-analysis of multitreatment studies. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(1):37–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sutton AJ, Higgins JP. Recent developments in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2008;27(5):625–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101(474):447–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Alemayehu D. Assessing exchangeability in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. Comp Eff Res (Auckl). 2011;1:51–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades AE. NICE DSU technical support document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Decision Support Unit (DSU), Shefffield. 2011: Last updated April 2012. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD3%20Heterogeneity.final%20report.08.05.12.pdf. Accessed 2 Sep 2014.

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Caro JJ, Ishak KJ. No head-to-head trial? Simulate the missing arms. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):957–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Blinder A. Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. J Hum Resour. 1973;8(4):436–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Oaxaca R, Ransom M. On discrimination and the decomposition of wage differentials. J Econom. 1994;61(1):5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ishak KJ, Kreif N, Benedict A, Muszbek N. Overview of parametric survival analysis for health-economic applications. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):663–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

K. Jack Ishak, Irina Proskorovsky, and Agnes Benedict are all employees of Evidera, which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government, and non-government organizations. In their salaried positions, they work with a variety of companies and organizations and are precluded from receiving payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered. This manuscript was discussed, written, and edited during their standard work hours and they received their standard salaries from Evidera. Dr. Ishak led the conceptual development, drafting, and review/editing of the paper. Ms. Proskorovsky and Ms. Benedict participated in the conceptual development, drafting, and review/editing of the paper. Dr Ishak will act as the overall guarantor of this work.

The authors wish to thank Connie Chen who provided insights into the applicability of the STC and MAIC methods for indirect comparison in practical situations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evidera, Suite 500, 7575 Trans-Canada Highway, St-Laurent, QC, H4T 1V6, Canada

    K. Jack Ishak & Irina Proskorovsky

  2. Evidera, Budapest, Hungary

    Agnes Benedict

Authors
  1. K. Jack Ishak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irina Proskorovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Agnes Benedict
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Jack Ishak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ishak, K.J., Proskorovsky, I. & Benedict, A. Simulation and Matching-Based Approaches for Indirect Comparison of Treatments. PharmacoEconomics 33, 537–549 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0271-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0271-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation