Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Indirect Comparisons: A Brief History and a Practical Look Forward

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Decision Making in a World of Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • 910 Accesses

Abstract

Indirect comparisons – the comparison of treatments across separate clinical trials – have become increasingly used over the past decade to inform healthcare decision making, especially for drug access and reimbursement. As a research tool, indirect comparisons have undergone a remarkable evolution. We provide a brief account of their development, highlight recent advances and long-standing challenges, and discuss how the use of indirect comparisons may continue to evolve in the near future.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Nazareth T, Ko J, Frois C, Carpenter S, Demean S, Wu E, Sasane R, Navarro R (2015) Outcomes-based pricing and reimbursement arrangements for pharmaceutical products in the U.S. and EU-5: payer and manufacturer experience and outlook. Poster presented at the AMCP NEXUS, Orlando. 26–29 Oct 2015

    Google Scholar 

  2. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cdf-sop.pdf

  3. Kleijnen S, George E, Goulden S, d'Andon A, Vitre P, Osinska B, Rdzany R, Thirstrup S, Corbacho B, Nagy BZ, Leufkens HG, de Boer A, Goettsch WG (2012) Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 15(6):954–960. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pocock SJ (1976) The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 29(3):175–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50(6):683–691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Xie J, Chalkidou K, Kamae I, Dittrich RE, Mahbub R, Vasan A, Metallo C (2017) Policy considerations: Ex-U.S. Payers and regulators. In: Birnbaum HG, Greenberg PE (eds) Decision making in a World of comparative effectiveness research. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lumley T (2002) Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21(16):2313–2324. doi:10.1002/sim.1201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. O'Regan C, Ghement I, Eyawo O, Guyatt GH, Mills EJ (2009) Incorporating multiple interventions in meta-analysis: an evaluation of the mixed treatment comparison with the adjusted indirect comparison. Trials 10:86. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-10-86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood AJ (2005) Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 9(26):1–134 iii–iv

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu G, Ades AE (2004) Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 23(20):3105–3124. doi:10.1002/sim.1875

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lu G, Ades AE (2006) Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 101(474):447–459. doi:10.1198/016214505000001302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1198/016214505000001302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, Barrett A (2011) Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(4):429–437. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC (2011) Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(4):417–428. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-02/summary_report__indirect_comparisons_methods_and_validity_january_2011_2.pdf

  15. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/usef1ul-resources/pbac-technical-working-groups-archive/indirect-comparisons-working-group-report-2008.pdf

  16. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/about/Indirect_comparison_and_mixed_treatment_comparison_checklist_final_V4_021013.doc

  17. https://www.iqwig.de/download/Joint_Statement_Indirect_Comparisons.pdf

  18. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/MH0003_Guidance_on_IDC_Reporting.pdf

  19. Bae S, Lee S, Bae EY, Jang S (2013) Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version): consensus and compromise. Pharmacoeconomics 31(4):257–267. doi:10.1007/s40273-012-0021-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guideline: comparators & comparisons: direct and indirect comparisons. EUnetHTA network. (November 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE (2014) NICE decision support unit technical support documents. In: A generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved., London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Caldwell DM, Lu G, Ades AE (2013) Evidence synthesis for decision making 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomized controlled trials. Med Decis MakingInt J Soc Med Decis Mak 33(5):641–656. doi:10.1177/0272989x12455847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton NJ, Ades A (2013) Evidence synthesis for decision making 3 heterogeneity—subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment. Med Decis Making 33(5):618–640

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim H, Gurrin L, Ademi Z, Liew D (2014) Overview of methods for comparing the efficacies of drugs in the absence of head-to-head clinical trial data. Br J Clin Pharmacol 77(1):116–121. doi:10.1111/bcp.12150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG (2009) Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 338:b1147. doi:10.1136/bmj.b1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 346:f2914. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2914

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mills EJ, Ioannidis JP, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Puhan MA, Guyatt GH (2012) How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA 308(12):1246–1253. doi:10.1001/2012.jama.11228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Song F, Xiong T, Parekh-Bhurke S, Loke YK, Sutton AJ, Eastwood AJ, Holland R, Chen YF, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2011) Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 343:d4909. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ (2003) Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 326(7387):472. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7387.472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Saramago P, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Manca A (2012) Mixed treatment comparisons using aggregate and individual participant level data. Stat Med 31(28):3516–3536. doi:10.1002/sim.5442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jansen JP (2012) Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods 3(2):177–190. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Veroniki AA, Straus SE, Ashoor HM, Hamid JS, Hemmelgarn BR, Holroyd-Leduc J, Majumdar SR, McAuley G, Tricco AC (2016) Comparative safety and effectiveness of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's dementia: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data network meta-analysis. BMJ Open 6(1):e010251. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Benedict A (2015) Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments. Pharmacoeconomics 33(6):537–549. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0271-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, Xie J, Lu M, Hodgkins PS, Betts KA, Wu EQ (2012) Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 15(6):940–947. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, Gupta SR, Mulani PM (2010) Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics 28(10):935–945. doi:10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thom H, Jugl S, Palaka E, Jawla S (2016) Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparisons to assess comparative effectiveness of therapies: usage in scientific literature and Health Technology Appraisals. Poster Presentation at ISPOR 21st Annual International Meeting, Washington, DC, 21–25 May 2016

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tan DS, Araujo A, Zhang J, Signorovitch J, Zhou ZY, Cai X, Liu G (2016) 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 11(9):1550–1557. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2016.05.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Signorovitch J, Swallow E, Kantor E, Wang X, Klimovsky J, Haas T, Devine B, Metrakos P (2013) Everolimus and sunitinib for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Exp Hematol Oncol 2(1):32. doi:10.1186/2162-3619-2-32

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/OncologicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM242009.pdf

  40. Martinalbo J, Camarero J, Delgado-Charro B, Démolis P, Ersbøll J, Foggi P, Jonsson B, O'Connor D, Pignatti F (2016) Single-arm trials for cancer drug approval and patient access. Ann Oncol 27(Suppl 6). doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw435.49. http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/suppl_6/1362O_PR.short

  41. Swallow E, Song J, Yuan Y, Kalsekar A, Kelley C, Peeples M, Mu F, Ackerman P, Signorovitch J (2016) Daclatasvir and sofosbuvir versus sofosbuvir and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C coinfected with HIV: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Clin Ther 38(2):404–412. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.12.017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hung A, Baas C, Bekelman J, Fitz-Randolph M, Mullins CD (2017) Patient and stakeholder engagement in designing pragmatic clinical trials. In: Birnbaum HG, Greenberg PE (eds) Decision making in a World of comparative effectiveness research. Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  43. http://www.drugabacus.org/

  44. Sydes MR, Johnson AL, Meredith SK, Rauchenberger M, South A, Parmar MK (2015) Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach. Trials 16:104. doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0604-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Strom BL, Buyse M, Hughes J, Knoppers BM (2014) Data sharing, year 1–access to data from industry-sponsored clinical trials. N Engl J Med 371(22):2052–2054. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1411794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA

    James Signorovitch

  2. Novartis, East Hanover, NJ, USA

    Jie Zhang

Authors
  1. James Signorovitch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jie Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Signorovitch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Howard G. Birnbaum

  2. Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Paul E. Greenberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Signorovitch, J., Zhang, J. (2017). Indirect Comparisons: A Brief History and a Practical Look Forward. In: Birnbaum, H., Greenberg, P. (eds) Decision Making in a World of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Adis, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3262-2_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3262-2_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Adis, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3261-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3262-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation