Methods for Indirect Treatment Comparison: Results from a Systematic Literature Review

• Published in: Journal of market access & health policy Vol. 12; no. 2; pp. 58 - 80
• Main Authors: Macabeo, Bérengère, Quenéchdu, Arthur, Aballéa, Samuel, François, Clément, Boyer, Laurent, Laramée, Philippe
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI 01-06-2024; Taylor & Francis Group
• Subjects: Bucher; indirect treatment comparison (ITC); matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC); network meta-analysis (NMA); oncology; systematic literature review (SLR); Systematic Review; network meta-analysis (NMA); indirect treatment comparison (ITC); methods; systematic literature review (SLR); Bucher; matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC); methodology; oncology
• ISSN: 2001-6689; 2001-6689
• DOI: 10.3390/jmahp12020006

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, not possible. Numerous ITC techniques are described in the literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify all the relevant literature on existing ITC techniques, provide a comprehensive description of each technique and evaluate their strengths and limitations from an HTA perspective in order to develop guidance on the most appropriate method to use in different scenarios.
Electronic database searches of Embase and PubMed, as well as grey literature searches, were conducted on 15 November 2021. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed papers that specifically described the methods used for different ITC techniques and were written in English. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
A total of 73 articles were included in the SLR, reporting on seven different ITC techniques. All reported techniques were forms of adjusted ITC. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was the most frequently described technique (in 79.5% of the included articles), followed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (30.1%), network meta-regression (24.7%), the Bucher method (23.3%), simulated treatment comparison (STC) (21.9%), propensity score matching (4.1%) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (4.1%). The appropriate choice of ITC technique is critical and should be based on the feasibility of a connected network, the evidence of heterogeneity between and within studies, the overall number of relevant studies and the availability of individual patient-level data (IPD). MAIC and STC were found to be common techniques in the case of single-arm studies, which are increasingly being conducted in oncology and rare diseases, whilst the Bucher method and NMA provide suitable options where no IPD is available.
ITCs can provide alternative evidence where direct comparative evidence may be missing. ITCs are currently considered by HTA agencies on a case-by-case basis; however, their acceptability remains low. Clearer international consensus and guidance on the methods to use for different ITC techniques is needed to improve the quality of ITCs submitted to HTA agencies. ITC techniques continue to evolve quickly, and more efficient techniques may become available in the future.