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.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the economic evaluations of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect economic evaluations of ALK-TKIs in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC from inception to July 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, a systematic review was performed. ResultsA total of 20 studies were included. 18 of the included studies were cost-utility analyses based on the models. The method of survival data extrapolation involved the standard parameter model and the standard parameter model with a hazard ratio adjusting. 10 studies considered or included the disutility value of adverse events. 18 studies performed cost estimation on direct costs. In China, 45% of the included studies were first-line treatment, the results showed that ALK-TKIs were less economical than chemotherapy, and second-/third-generation ALK-TKIs were less economical than crizotinib. Only 1 studies were second-line treatment, the result showed that crizotinib was more economical than chemotherapy. ConclusionThe economic evaluation results of ALK-TKIs in ALK-positive NSCLC vary according to treatment stage and national scenario, and there is also room for optimization of methodological application in this field.