IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i2p200-211.html

Methods for Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Health Technology Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Phillippo
  • Anthony E. Ades
  • Sofia Dias
  • Stephen Palmer
  • Keith R. Abrams
  • Nicky J. Welton

Abstract

Standard methods for indirect comparisons and network meta-analysis are based on aggregate data, with the key assumption that there is no difference between the trials in the distribution of effect-modifying variables. Methods which relax this assumption are becoming increasingly common for submissions to reimbursement agencies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). These methods use individual patient data from a subset of trials to form population-adjusted indirect comparisons between treatments, in a specific target population. Recently proposed population adjustment methods include the Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) and the Simulated Treatment Comparison (STC). Despite increasing popularity, MAIC and STC remain largely untested. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity about exactly how and when they should be applied in practice, and even whether the results are relevant to the decision problem. There is therefore a real and present risk that the assumptions being made in one submission to a reimbursement agency are fundamentally different to—or even incompatible with—the assumptions being made in another for the same indication. We describe the assumptions required for population-adjusted indirect comparisons, and demonstrate how these may be used to generate comparisons in any given target population. We distinguish between anchored and unanchored comparisons according to whether a common comparator arm is used or not. Unanchored comparisons make much stronger assumptions, which are widely regarded as infeasible. We provide recommendations on how and when population adjustment methods should be used, and the supporting analyses that are required to provide statistically valid, clinically meaningful, transparent and consistent results for the purposes of health technology appraisal. Simulation studies are needed to examine the properties of population adjustment methods and their robustness to breakdown of assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Phillippo & Anthony E. Ades & Sofia Dias & Stephen Palmer & Keith R. Abrams & Nicky J. Welton, 2018. "Methods for Population-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons in Health Technology Appraisal," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(2), pages 200-211, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:2:p:200-211
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17725740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17725740
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17725740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J.Jaime Caro & K. Ishak, 2010. "No Head-to-Head Trial? Simulate the Missing Arms," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(10), pages 957-967, October.
    2. Rod Little & Sonya Vartivarian, 2004. "Does Weighting for Nonresponse Increase the Variance of Survey Means?," The University of Michigan Department of Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1034, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    4. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    5. Erin Hartman & Richard Grieve & Roland Ramsahai & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2015. "From sample average treatment effect to population average treatment effect on the treated: combining experimental with observational studies to estimate population treatment effects," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(3), pages 757-778, June.
    6. Elizabeth A. Stuart & Stephen R. Cole & Catherine P. Bradshaw & Philip J. Leaf, 2011. "The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(2), pages 369-386, April.
    7. Kosuke Imai & Gary King & Elizabeth A. Stuart, 2008. "Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 481-502, April.
    8. Roderick J. Little & Sonya Vartivarian, "undated". "Does Weighting for Nonresponse Increase the Variance of Survey Means? (Conference Paper)," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 1e14e3c1234e4e85b49a9bba8, Mathematica Policy Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nan Qiao & Ralph Insinga & Thomas Burke & Gilberto Lopes, 2021. "Cost-Minimization Analysis of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy Versus Nivolumab in Combination with Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic PD-L1-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A US Payer Per," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 765-778, December.
    2. Dasom Lee & Shu Yang & Lin Dong & Xiaofei Wang & Donglin Zeng & Jianwen Cai, 2023. "Improving trial generalizability using observational studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1213-1225, June.
    3. Alex J. Turner & Cormac Sammon & Nick Latimer & Blythe Adamson & Brennan Beal & Vivek Subbiah & Keith R. Abrams & Joshua Ray, 2024. "Transporting Comparative Effectiveness Evidence Between Countries: Considerations for Health Technology Assessments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 165-176, February.
    4. Jiyeon Kang & John Cairns, 2023. "“Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right”: Using Additional Data to Reduce Uncertainty Regarding Oncologic Drugs Provided Through Managed Access Agreements in England," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, January.
    5. Sanjay Popat & Stephen V. Liu & Nicolas Scheuer & Grace G. Hsu & Alexandre Lockhart & Sreeram V. Ramagopalan & Frank Griesinger & Vivek Subbiah, 2022. "Addressing challenges with real-world synthetic control arms to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of Pralsetinib in non-small cell lung cancer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Pingyu Chen & Mengjie Luo & Yanqiu Chen & Yanlei Zhang & Chao Wang & Hongchao Li, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol versus human urinary kallidinogenase for acute ischemic stroke in China," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Doug Coyle & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski & Jasmine Farrington & Louis Garrison & Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner & Louise Longworth & Aurélie Meunier & Anne-Sophie Moutié & Ste, 2020. "HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1421-1437, December.
    8. Ying Liu & Xiaoning He & Jia Liu & Jing Wu, 2025. "Is the Use of Unanchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Always Superior to Naïve Indirect Comparison on Survival Outcomes? A Simulation Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 693-704, July.
    9. Manuel Gomes & Nick Latimer & Marta Soares & Sofia Dias & Gianluca Baio & Nick Freemantle & Dalia Dawoud & Allan Wailoo & Richard Grieve, 2022. "Target Trial Emulation for Transparent and Robust Estimation of Treatment Effects for Health Technology Assessment Using Real-World Data: Opportunities and Challenges," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 577-586, June.
    10. B. Muresan & C. Mamolo & J. C. Cappelleri & M. J. Postma & B. Heeg, 2021. "Cost-Effectiveness of Bosutinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in the Second-Line Setting," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 929-940, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dasom Lee & Shu Yang & Lin Dong & Xiaofei Wang & Donglin Zeng & Jianwen Cai, 2023. "Improving trial generalizability using observational studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1213-1225, June.
    2. Ottoboni Kellie N. & Poulos Jason V., 2020. "Estimating population average treatment effects from experiments with noncompliance," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 108-130, January.
    3. Kellie Ottoboni & Jason Poulos, 2019. "Estimating population average treatment effects from experiments with noncompliance," Papers 1901.02991, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    4. Quinn Lanners & Cynthia Rudin & Alexander Volfovsky & Harsh Parikh, 2025. "Data Fusion for Partial Identification of Causal Effects," Papers 2505.24296, arXiv.org.
    5. Naoki Egami & Erin Hartman, 2021. "Covariate selection for generalizing experimental results: Application to a large‐scale development program in Uganda," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1524-1548, October.
    6. Jason J. Sauppe & Sheldon H. Jacobson, 2017. "The role of covariate balance in observational studies," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 323-344, June.
    7. Adeola Oyenubi & Martin Wittenberg, 2021. "Does the choice of balance-measure matter under genetic matching?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 489-502, July.
    8. Wendy Chan, 2018. "Applications of Small Area Estimation to Generalization With Subclassification by Propensity Scores," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 43(2), pages 182-224, April.
    9. Fan Li & Ashley L. Buchanan & Stephen R. Cole, 2022. "Generalizing trial evidence to target populations in non‐nested designs: Applications to AIDS clinical trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(3), pages 669-697, June.
    10. Adeola Oyenubi, 2020. "On sensitivity of Genetic Matching to the choice of balance measure," ERSA Working Paper Series, Economic Research Southern Africa, vol. 0.
    11. Boone, Audra & Broughman, Brian & Macias, Antonio J., 2018. "Shareholder approval thresholds in acquisitions: Evidence from tender offers," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 225-245.
    12. Das, Ashis & Friedman, Jed & Kandpal, Eeshani, 2014. "Does involvement of local NGOs enhance public service delivery ? cautionary evidence from a Malaria-prevention evaluation in India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6931, The World Bank.
    13. Melody Y Huang & Harsh Parikh, 2024. "Towards Generalizing Inferences from Trials to Target Populations," Papers 2402.17042, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    14. Denis Fougère & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2020. "Policy Evaluation Using Causal Inference Methods," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03455978, HAL.
    15. Elizabeth A. Stuart & Anna Rhodes, 2017. "Generalizing Treatment Effect Estimates From Sample to Population: A Case Study in the Difficulties of Finding Sufficient Data," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(4), pages 357-388, August.
    16. Elizabeth Tipton, 2021. "Beyond generalization of the ATE: Designing randomized trials to understand treatment effect heterogeneity," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(2), pages 504-521, April.
    17. Lundberg, Ian & Brand, Jennie E. & Jeon, Nanum, 2022. "Researcher reasoning meets computational capacity: Machine learning for social science," SocArXiv s5zc8, Center for Open Science.
    18. Elizabeth Tipton & Kelly Hallberg & Larry V. Hedges & Wendy Chan, 2017. "Implications of Small Samples for Generalization: Adjustments and Rules of Thumb," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(5), pages 472-505, October.
    19. Espenlaub, Susanne & Goyal, Abhinav & Mohamed, Abdulkadir, 2020. "The impact of shareholders and creditors rights on IPO performance: An international study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    20. Chen, Yinghui & Chen, Miao & Huang, Yong, 2025. "Multiple large shareholders and cash holdings: Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:2:p:200-211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.