Analysis of the methodological points and practice status of matching-adjusted indirect comparison application_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

XU Jiayi , DAI Zhanjing , LU Yuqiong , LU Yun ,  CHANG Feng

1. School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 211198, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

CHANG Feng, Email: cpucf@163.com

Keywords：

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison; Indirect comparison; Methodology; Systematic review

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202310035

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To provide methodological guidance for the application of matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Methods The methodology literature on MAIC was examined to clarify key steps and methodological points, and MAIC application literature in the non-small cell lung cancer field published after January 2016 was systematically reviewed to compare and analyze the current status and problems of MAIC. Results MAIC consisted of five key steps: data source and sample selection, matching variable screening, individual weight calculation, matching validity evaluation, and relative efficacy calculation. The systematic review revealed that studies primarily employed literature reviews to screen data sources, used statistical analysis and other scientific methods to screen matching variables, employed software for individual weight calculation, evaluated matching validity by reporting effective sample size (ESS), calculated relative efficacy using Cox, logistic, and other models, conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the uncertainty caused by different data sources and matching variable combinations, and the studies demonstrated good overall reporting standardization but significant differences in particular aspects. Concerning the connection between MAIC and pharmacoeconomic research, studies included mainly used target drugs as the reference group of survival data extrapolation, and proportional hazards (PH) assumptions were considered when utilizing hazard ratios (HR) in extrapolation. Conclusion There are some deficiencies in the method application and reporting standards of MAIC research, such as lack of explanation of data source selection criteria and matching variable screening criteria, insufficient reporting of weight distribution, and inadequate consideration of PH assumptions. It is recommended that future MAIC research systematically screen data sources and report covariate distribution evaluation, covariate status evaluation, weight distribution, uncertainty measurement, etc. Additionally, considering PH assumptions after calculating HR is suggested.

Citation： XU Jiayi, DAI Zhanjing, LU Yuqiong, LU Yun, CHANG Feng. Analysis of the methodological points and practice status of matching-adjusted indirect comparison application. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2024, 24(3): 322-330. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202310035 Copy

1.	Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submission to NICE. 2016.
2.	Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 2016.
3.	Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. 2023.
4.	Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 2011.
5.	Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment. 2011.
6.	Faria R, Hernandez AM, Manca A, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 17: the use of observational data to inform estimates of treatment effectiveness for technology appraisal: methods for comparative individual patient data. 2015.
7.	Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, 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): 935-945.
8.	Remiro-Azócar A. Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2022, 22(1): 217.
9.	Remiro-Azócar A, Heath A, Baio G. Methods for population adjustment with limited access to individual patient data: a review and simulation study. Res Synth Methods, 2021, 12(6): 750-775.
10.	Paik PK, Pfeiffer BM, Vioix H, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of tepotinib with other MET inhibitors for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with MET exon 14 skipping mutations. Adv Ther, 2022, 39(7): 3159-3179.
11.	王婷. 替吉奥联合非铂类二线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的回顾性多中心研究. 济南: 山东大学, 2021.
12.	Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, et al. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med Decis Making, 2018, 38(2): 200-211.
13.	Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health, 2012, 15(6): 940-947.
14.	Gregory J, Smith S, Birnie R. MAIC: package to perform matched-adjusted indirect comparisons. 2023.
15.	Smith S, Albuquerque de Almeida F, Inês M, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of lorlatinib versus chemotherapy for patients with second-line or later anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Value Health, 2023, 26(1): 64-70.
16.	Halmos B, Burke T, Kalyvas C, et al. Indirect comparison of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line metastatic lung cancer. Immunotherapy, 2022, 14(5): 295-307.
17.	Halmos B, Burke T, Kalyvas C, et al. Pembrolizumab+chemotherapy versus atezolizumab+chemotherapy+/-bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Lung Cancer, 2021, 155: 175-182.
18.	Halmos B, Burke T, Kalyvas C, et al. A Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs. nivolumab + ipilimumab as first-line therapies in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% metastatic NSCLC. Cancers (Basel), 2020, 12(12): 3648.
19.	Chu P, Antoniou M, Bhutani MK, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison: entrectinib versus crizotinib in ROS1 fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(12): 861-876.
20.	Reckamp K, Lin HM, Huang J, et al. Comparative efficacy of brigatinib versus ceritinib and alectinib in patients with crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Curr Med Res Opin, 2019, 35(4): 569-576.
21.	Li J, Knoll S, Bocharova I, et al. Comparative efficacy of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib in advanced or metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer: an adjusted indirect comparison with external controls. Curr Med Res Opin, 2019, 35(1): 105-111.
22.	Li J, Sasane M, Zhao J, et al. Comparative efficacy of treatments for previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther, 2018, 35(7): 1035-1048.
23.	Tan DS, Araújo A, Zhang J, et al. Comparative efficacy of ceritinib and crizotinib as initial ALK-targeted therapies in previously treated advanced NSCLC: an adjusted comparison with external controls. J Thorac Oncol, 2016, 11(9): 1550-1557.
24.	Yang M, Vioix H, Sachdev R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tepotinib versus capmatinib for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 skipping. Value Health, 2023, 26(4): 487-497.
25.	Cranmer H, Kearns I, Young M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in adult patients with ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer from a US perspective. J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2022, 28(9): 970-979.
26.	Chen P, Wang X, Zhu S, et al. Economic evaluation of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of first-line advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. Front Public Health, 2022, 10: 956792.
27.	Gourzoulidis G, Zisimopoulou O, Boubouchairopoulou N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of lorlatinib in patients previously treated with anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer in Greece. J Health Econ Outcomes Res, 2022, 9(1): 50-57.
28.	Rui M, Fei Z, Wang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab + chemotherapy versus camrelizumab + chemotherapy for the treatment of first-line locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in China. J Med Econ, 2022, 25(1): 618-629.
29.	Nilsson FOL, Asanin ST, Masters ET, et al. The cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib versus chemotherapy as a second- or third-line treatment in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in Sweden. Pharmacoeconomics, 2021, 39(8): 941-952.
30.	Qiao N, Insinga R, Burke T, et al. 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 perspective. Pharmacoecon Open, 2021, 5(4): 765-778.
31.	Loong HH, Wong CKH, Leung LKS, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Hong Kong. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2020, 18(1): 50.
32.	Zhou ZY, Mutebi A, Han S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. J Med Econ, 2018, 21(6): 577-586.
33.	刘颖欣, 王若婷, 黎国威. 匹配调整间接比较在医学研究中的应用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2022, 22(10): 1201-1205.
34.	Serret-Larmande A, Zenati B, Dechartres A, et al. A methodological review of population-adjusted indirect comparisons reveals inconsistent reporting and suggests publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol, 2023, 163: 1-10.
35.	Claxton L, O'Connor J, Woolacott N, et al. Ceritinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an evidence review group evaluation of a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics, 2019, 37(5): 645-654.

1. Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submission to NICE. 2016.
2. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. 2016.
3. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. 2023.
4. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 2011.
5. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment. 2011.
6. Faria R, Hernandez AM, Manca A, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 17: the use of observational data to inform estimates of treatment effectiveness for technology appraisal: methods for comparative individual patient data. 2015.
7. Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, 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): 935-945.
8. Remiro-Azócar A. Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2022, 22(1): 217.
9. Remiro-Azócar A, Heath A, Baio G. Methods for population adjustment with limited access to individual patient data: a review and simulation study. Res Synth Methods, 2021, 12(6): 750-775.
10. Paik PK, Pfeiffer BM, Vioix H, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of tepotinib with other MET inhibitors for the treatment of advanced NSCLC with MET exon 14 skipping mutations. Adv Ther, 2022, 39(7): 3159-3179.
11. 王婷. 替吉奥联合非铂类二线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的回顾性多中心研究. 济南: 山东大学, 2021.
12. Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, et al. Methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in health technology appraisal. Med Decis Making, 2018, 38(2): 200-211.
13. Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health, 2012, 15(6): 940-947.
14. Gregory J, Smith S, Birnie R. MAIC: package to perform matched-adjusted indirect comparisons. 2023.
15. Smith S, Albuquerque de Almeida F, Inês M, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of lorlatinib versus chemotherapy for patients with second-line or later anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Value Health, 2023, 26(1): 64-70.
16. Halmos B, Burke T, Kalyvas C, et al. Indirect comparison of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus nivolumab + ipilimumab in first-line metastatic lung cancer. Immunotherapy, 2022, 14(5): 295-307.
17. Halmos B, Burke T, Kalyvas C, et al. Pembrolizumab+chemotherapy versus atezolizumab+chemotherapy+/-bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Lung Cancer, 2021, 155: 175-182.
18. Halmos B, Burke T, Kalyvas C, et al. A Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs. nivolumab + ipilimumab as first-line therapies in patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥1% metastatic NSCLC. Cancers (Basel), 2020, 12(12): 3648.
19. Chu P, Antoniou M, Bhutani MK, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison: entrectinib versus crizotinib in ROS1 fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer. J Comp Eff Res, 2020, 9(12): 861-876.
20. Reckamp K, Lin HM, Huang J, et al. Comparative efficacy of brigatinib versus ceritinib and alectinib in patients with crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Curr Med Res Opin, 2019, 35(4): 569-576.
21. Li J, Knoll S, Bocharova I, et al. Comparative efficacy of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib in advanced or metastatic anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer: an adjusted indirect comparison with external controls. Curr Med Res Opin, 2019, 35(1): 105-111.
22. Li J, Sasane M, Zhao J, et al. Comparative efficacy of treatments for previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther, 2018, 35(7): 1035-1048.
23. Tan DS, Araújo A, Zhang J, et al. Comparative efficacy of ceritinib and crizotinib as initial ALK-targeted therapies in previously treated advanced NSCLC: an adjusted comparison with external controls. J Thorac Oncol, 2016, 11(9): 1550-1557.
24. Yang M, Vioix H, Sachdev R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of tepotinib versus capmatinib for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 skipping. Value Health, 2023, 26(4): 487-497.
25. Cranmer H, Kearns I, Young M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in adult patients with ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer from a US perspective. J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2022, 28(9): 970-979.
26. Chen P, Wang X, Zhu S, et al. Economic evaluation of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of first-line advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. Front Public Health, 2022, 10: 956792.
27. Gourzoulidis G, Zisimopoulou O, Boubouchairopoulou N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of lorlatinib in patients previously treated with anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer in Greece. J Health Econ Outcomes Res, 2022, 9(1): 50-57.
28. Rui M, Fei Z, Wang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab + chemotherapy versus camrelizumab + chemotherapy for the treatment of first-line locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in China. J Med Econ, 2022, 25(1): 618-629.
29. Nilsson FOL, Asanin ST, Masters ET, et al. The cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib versus chemotherapy as a second- or third-line treatment in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in Sweden. Pharmacoeconomics, 2021, 39(8): 941-952.
30. Qiao N, Insinga R, Burke T, et al. 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 perspective. Pharmacoecon Open, 2021, 5(4): 765-778.
31. Loong HH, Wong CKH, Leung LKS, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceritinib vs. crizotinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Hong Kong. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2020, 18(1): 50.
32. Zhou ZY, Mutebi A, Han S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. J Med Econ, 2018, 21(6): 577-586.
33. 刘颖欣, 王若婷, 黎国威. 匹配调整间接比较在医学研究中的应用. 中国循证医学杂志, 2022, 22(10): 1201-1205.
34. Serret-Larmande A, Zenati B, Dechartres A, et al. A methodological review of population-adjusted indirect comparisons reveals inconsistent reporting and suggests publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol, 2023, 163: 1-10.
35. Claxton L, O'Connor J, Woolacott N, et al. Ceritinib for untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an evidence review group evaluation of a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics, 2019, 37(5): 645-654.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Analysis of the methodological points and practice status of matching-adjusted indirect comparison application

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content