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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cdf-sop.pdf
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
Pocock SJ (1976) The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 29(3):175–188
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
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
Lumley T (2002) Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21(16):2313–2324. doi:10.1002/sim.1201
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
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
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
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
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
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
https://www.iqwig.de/download/Joint_Statement_Indirect_Comparisons.pdf
https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/MH0003_Guidance_on_IDC_Reporting.pdf
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
Guideline: comparators & comparisons: direct and indirect comparisons. EUnetHTA network. (November 2015)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Jansen JP (2012) Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods 3(2):177–190. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1048
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)